Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bradford) Bill [Lords] (by Order).

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RECRUITS (INQUIRIES).

Mr. Ede: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any instructions or advice have been given to recruiting personnel when asking for references as to character, to make inquiries direct or indirect into the political opinions or past activities that might indicate the political opinions of men desiring to join the Army?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): No, Sir.

FIRE, SHOEBURYNESS.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information in connection with the fire at Shoeburyness, Essex, on Monday, 10th July; what was the cause of the fire, and the amount of damage?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The fire occurred in the sergeants' mess on the night of 9th/10th July, after the mess had been closed at 11.45 p.m It was discovered at 1 a.m. and was extinguished by 1.45 a.m. A Court of Inquiry found that there was no evidence to suggest any fault in the electric light wiring or incendiarism, and was of opinion that the fire originated in a small room used for keeping brooms and cleaning material,

and may have been caused by a match or cigarette end. The amount of the damage is estimated at £1,000.

Mr. Thorne: Has not the right hon. Gentleman been able to find out who threw the match or cigarette as suggested?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir.

FULWOOD BARRACKS, PRESTON (SHOOTING FATALITY).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information in connection with the woman found shot on Sunday in the married quarters at Fulwood Barracks, Preston?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am informed that the wife and daughter of Sergeant R. Smith, Depot, The Loyal Regiment, were found shot on 10th July last in his married quarters at Fulwood Barracks. I regret that both of them died as a result of the wounds received. Sergeant Smith was taken into civil custody, and the case is being investigated by the civil authorities.

DEPENDANTS' ALLOWANCE.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will arrange for the payment of dependant allowances to unmarried wives and their children in respect of men called to the colours from the Reserve and/or the Territorial Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The issue of dependants' allowance to unmarried wives and their children is not provided for in the Regulations, but assistance may be given in particular cases, where the circumstances are regarded as warranting this special course, on the recommendation of the Military Service (Special Allowances) Advisory Committee.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT CAMP (GERMAN OFFICERS' VISIT).

Sir Thomas Cook: asked the Secretary of State for War for what purpose German officers recently visited the anti aircraft artillery camp in North Norfolk; and whether similar facilities are available to other nations?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The officers who visited the anti-aircraft camp were the German Military and Air Attaches. Such visits are a normal courtesy accorded to the official Service representatives of


foreign Powers, and are of a reciprocal nature. Similar facilities are available to the representatives of other nations.

REGIMENTAL OFFICERS (EXPENSES).

Ede: asked the Secretary of State for War what particular action he has taken to ensure that undue expense shall not fall on regimental officers?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: There are standing instructions in the regulations on the subject of the limitation of contributions and subscriptions, and economy in messing and entertainment and other matters, to which the attention of all commanding officers is directed.

Mr. Ede: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put in the word "particular" because I am aware of these general instructions; has he taken any steps recently, in view of the expansion of the Army, to make it quite clear that these expenses are strictly limited; and are General Officers Commanding being given any instructions to give their particular attention to this matter?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir, no particular instruction has been issued, but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are several references to this matter in King's Regulations, and I have not taken any special steps

Mr. Ede: In view of the expansion of the Army and the declared desire of the right hon. Gentleman to make sure that the officerships of the Army shall be open to all classes, will he consider drawing particular attention to those regulations and ask General Officers Commanding to see that they are enforced?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think the views of the Army Council are well known on the subject, and I will consider whether any thing more is necessary, and, if so, what can be done.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Is it not usual in times of emergency for particular attention to be paid to matters of economy, especially on the part of officers?

TIME-EXPIRED MEN (CIVIL EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the present efforts that are being made to enlist men for His Majesty's Forces, he

will consider and give particulars of what further steps the Government now propose to take to ensure that civilian employment is offered to time-expired men on leaving the Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Vocational training at Ministry of Labour Training Centres is available for every man of good character, who has completed not less than six years with the Colours, and has not served as a tradesman during his service at a trade which has a counterpart in civil life. Of such men trained during 1938, just over 77 percent, were placed in immediate employment. The interests of any men who are not found immediate employment are specially looked after by the Ministry of Labour. The majority of them are soon placed.

Mr. Day: Does not the Minister agree that if some guarantee were given to these men about employment it would assist the recruiting campaign?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I did not quite hear the question, but the answer is that practically all these men are able to obtain employment.

Mr. Day: That is not an answer to my question. Is it not possible for the Minister, when enlisting these men, to give them some guarantee of future employment after they have finished their service?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: It would be quite impossible to give a guarantee of that kind; but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, very decisive efforts are made, and made with success.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Surely, it would be possible for the Minister to put pressure on other Government Departments such as the Post Office to employ a very much larger number of ex-service men?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The Government Departments do co-operate, but I do not think that the problem is to-day what it was in the past, as our records show that almost every soldier on leaving the Colours is getting employment at the present time.

Mr. Kirkwood: Would it not be a dangerous practice if men who served in the Army were to get special treatment: compared with men who had done their best to keep things going at home?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As good employers, we naturally try to look after the men when they leave the Service.

APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. Eckersley: asked the Secretary of State for War how many appointments in the Regular and Territorial Armies have been awaiting confirmation by the Treasury for periods of over two months, six weeks, and one month, respectively; and whether he will consult with the Treasury with a view to securing that all appointments submitted to them by the War Office for confirmation should be dealt with within 14 days?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: His Majesty's Government is one and indivisible, and it would be a War Office responsibility to answer for any delays which my hon. Friend has in mind if he will specify them.

CONTRACT, DURHAM (WORKING CONDITIONS).

Mr. Ritson: asked the Secretary of State for War the total number of men employed at the construction works, near Durham, for the week ending 3rd June, and subsequent weeks, and the total number of hours for which they were paid?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the Official Report. It will be seen that the average number of hours a man a week is 52.

Mr. Ritson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great dissatisfaction existing on this job about these hours? Will he make further inquiry? Is he aware that a deputation of the British Legion who came to see me said that of the men who had complained, there was only one now left on the job, because they had complained?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The hon. Member asked me a question last week and suggested that the men were being compelled to work 80 hours a week. I denied that, and I have now set out in detail the complete schedule of working hours, showing that the average is 52. The lowest is 42 and the highest 56. Both those figures are very considerably below the figure suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Ritson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he gave his answer last

week my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) and I have been on the job— we went last Saturday— and met a deputation, who refused to accept the figures he gave?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am amazed at what the hon. Member suggests. I have set out for each week the number of men employed, the total number of hours worked and the average hours per man. I will circulate them, and I am willing to examine them with the hon. Member. I cannot understand how such a difference can exist.

Mr. Batey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I went with my hon. Friend last Saturday the men said that they had been working 100 hours a week? Will he agree to have an inquiry on the spot? If so, we will agree to go there and meet his representative.

Mr. Hore-Belisha: In the circumstances, if the hon. Member will give me a written statement from any man who alleges that he has worked 100 hours, I will willingly consider it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: As this is an important matter, since men have been dismissed—

Mr. Speaker: We have a large number of questions on the Order Paper.

Following is the answer:

The pay week on this contract ends on Wednesday, and, for convenience, the figures given are for each pay week.


Week ended.
Number of men employed.
Total number of hours worked.
Average hours per man.


1939.



31st May
236
10,239
43·4


7th June
242
14,159
58·5


14th June
255
14,148
55·5


21st June
244
10,320
42·3


28th June
255
13,935
54·6


5th July
247
12,849
52·0


12th July
238
13,415
56.4


Average hours worked per man
52·0

COMMISSIONS (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of Members of the House who now hold commissions in the Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Eighty-four hon. Members hold commissions in one branch or another of the Army.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the commissions are held by members of the Government? Is it two or three?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I cannot say precisely, because the question refers to Members of the House; but there are such commissions.

Mr. Mander: If I put down a further question will the right hon. Gentleman answer it?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I always try to answer questions.

ROYAL ARMY RESERVE (BADGE).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller: asked the Secretary of State for War whether a decision has yet been reached regarding the issue of a badge for Army reservists?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. His Majesty has been graciously pleased to approve that the Army Reserve should be redesignated "The Royal Army Reserve," and that a silver badge shall be issued to members of the Regular Army Reserve of Officers and the Royal Army Reserve, including officers and other ranks of the Supplementary Reserve, and militiamen who remain in the Army Reserve after they have completed their six months' training. Issue will be made as soon as possible.

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT (MILITARY PROCEEDINGS).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of J. Futcher, of Sunnyside, Parton, Wiltshire, who was run down by a motor vehicle, on 13th May, which was driven by a member of the Royal Army Service Corps; that the case of careless or dangerous driving was withdrawn from the civil court and dealt with by the military authorities; under what authority this was done; and whether a report of the proceedings will be made available to the injured person?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The police withdrew the summons on being informed that the soldier had been summarily dealt with by the Officer Commanding the Divisional

Royal Army Service Corps, who was unaware that police proceedings were pending. As the case was dealt with summarily, there is no report of the proceedings, except that the soldier was charged with negligent driving and failing to report an accident, and was awarded 168 hours detention.

Mr. Williams: Can the right hon Gentleman say on what authority the military authorities can deal with a case of this description, to the exclusion of the case being dealt with in a civil court? Is he aware that for compensation purposes whenever a case is dealt with in a civil court the injured person or his representative can claim a copy of the proceedings?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The commanding officer, as I have said, was not aware that any proceedings were being taken in a civil court. In the circumstances he punished the man as being one of his men. The police: on learning of this did not continue any proceedings against him. Normally, such a case as this would be tried before a civil court.

Mr. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question, and will he insist that in future the military authorities shall not deal summarily with such a case but shall allow the proceedings to be taken in a civil court?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I have said that, normally, proceedings would be taken by the civil authority. In this case some days had elapsed and the commanding officer was not aware that any proceedings were being taken. If he had been, he would not have tried the case summarily. The hon. Member may rest assured that the normal procedure would be for the civil court to take proceedings in the ordinary way. In regard to the last part of the question, I think I answered that specifically in the original reply. There is no report of the proceedings except the charge and the sentence.

HORSES (SUPPLY).

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to ensure that an adequate supply of horses, both riding and draught, is available in this country in case of emergency?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am advised that there is an adequate supply in this country of both riding and draught horses for military needs in emergency.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is it not a fact that many foreign countries are buying all the horses they can?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not know whether foreign countries are buying all the horses they can, but the President of the Board of Trade showed the other day that they were buying very few.

CAVALRY.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that both our horsed cavalry regiments are employed abroad he will consider reconverting some of the mechanised cavalry to horses?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The question presupposes that a mechanised cavalry regiment can be transformed into a horsed cavalry regiment merely by providing it with horses and the appropriate equipment. A far more expeditious method in case of need would be to make use of the 15 yeomanry regiments.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Are not foreign countries keeping a far larger proportion of regular cavalry in their armies, and would it not be much wiser for us to do the same?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: We have a large number of regiments.

Brigadier-General Sir Ernest Makins: Is my right hon. Friend aware how very valuable the mounted regiments have proved in Palestine, and that the infantry brigadiers are now wanting to have a proportion of their infantry battalions mounted?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I do not think they are staying much longer in Palestine.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where the correspondence column is stationed?

MILITIA CAMPS' CONSTRUCTION (MATERIALS, PRICE).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that excessive prices are being paid for materials required in the construction of Militia camps at Devizes, Perham Downs and Bulford; that stoneware pipes are

being put in at 9s. 7d. per yard instead of concrete pipes at 6s., and that bricks are being invoiced at 70s. per 1,000 whereas they should cost 52s. 6d. per 1,000; and what steps he will take to stop this waste of public money?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am informed that concrete pipes are not manufactured under 9 inch diameter, whereas by far the greatest portion of the drainage system in barracks and camps consists of 4 inch and 6 inch pipes. Further, concrete pipes are not absolutely impermeable, and the medical authorities prefer earthenware. No source of supply of bricks at 52s. 6d. a thousand delivered at site is known to the War Department or their contractors, and I should be grateful to the hon. Member if he will give me information of such a source.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the standard price for bricks of this quality is 44s. 6d. per 1,000, and is he aware that since this information came into my hands the resident engineer at the camp has been suspended for passing the information on to me?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am reluctant to accept either of those statements. If the object of the hon. Member is to assist the Government to get the best possible terms, perhaps he will send me the information so that I can deal with it.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that on frequent occasions I have endeavoured to assist the Government, but that I have received no response whatever, and that the Government have shown no interest whatever in suggestions of manufacture without profit?

SHELL PRODUCTION, IPSWICH.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that. Ipswich has now been scheduled as a suitable place into which to evacuate children from London in case of emergency, he will reconsider the decision of his Department taken in 1936 with regard to the spending of some £30,000 for machine-tools required by a firm in that town for the production of shell?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: In view of the fact stated in the first part of the question it would be clearly imprudent to comply with the suggestion contained in the second part of the question.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Minister of Health has declared a part of Ipswich not to be a vulnerable area, and that the factory in question is on the outskirts of the town, and that at the price at which orders for shells were being placed at the time the saving effected during the past few years would have more than compensated for the cost of the plant? Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the position?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: If it is true that the Minister of Health is evacuating children to Ipswich it would surely be imprudent for us to establish a shell factory there.

HAMPSHIRE REGIMENT (DEPOT).

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an undertaking that the period of the removal of the depot of the Hampshire Regiment from Winchester will not be extended beyond the three years at present con templated?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: On the assumption that the militia would be in existence only for three years, the answer, as far as can be foreseen, would be in the affirmative.

Mr. Palmer: Suppose it proves to be incorrect, will the right hon. Gentleman give further attention to it?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I can only say what the present intention is. I cannot say what will be the position in three years' time.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to move the Rifle Depot under any cir cumstances?

RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES ACT (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make any statement on the position of Members of Parliament under King's Regulations, paragraph 530, who are called up for service under the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act, 1939?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Hon. Members who are called up for service under the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act will be given leave to attend to their Parliamentary duties both in the House and in their constituencies. The case of a by-election or of a General Election could be dealt with, if it arose, by release from service.

Viscountess Aster: Will the right hon. Gentleman somehow make it known that hon. Members of the House who are away with their Territorial or other units are not, as the Opposition would make out, on pleasure?

FOOD SUPPLIES.

Mr. Isaacs: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the complaints regarding the food supplied to the Thirtieth Surrey Anti-Aircraft Search light Battalion, Royal Engineers, during their training at war stations in Sussex and Hampshire; that Japanese tinned salmon and tinned tomatoes from Italy were supplied; that at first no fresh milk was available but, as a result of complaints, eventually it was supplied at the rate of one and a half pints per day for 10 men; and whether he is prepared to make close inquiry into this matter?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Fish, tomatoes and milk are purchased by units at their discretion from their cash allowance. I am informed that, in the case of this unit: No Japanese salmon whatever was supplied. Some Italian tomatoes were bought there being a shortage of other suitable brands. Fresh milk was supplied as soon as it was asked for, and was not restricted to one and a half pints a day for 10 men.

Mr. Isaacs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar complaints have been made by units stationed at Weston and also by units in Bradford, who complain that they are getting foreign rations, and that they have to pay 10s. a week out of their pay to make up the rations? Will he refund the men this money?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I really think that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I can say from my own know ledge, having visited a number of these camps, that far from there being any complaints of a serious character, the men express the utmost content and good spirit.

SITE ACQUISITION, CROYDON.

Mr. Isaacs: asked the Secretary of State for War why the War Office have purchased certain private property in Sydenham Road and Tavistock Road, Croydon, a modern property which will have to be demolished, so involving com pensation, when there are many vacant sites in other parts of Croydon?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The 63rd Searchlight Regiment for which new headquarters is to be provided on this site was formed by the conversion of the 4th Battalion, The Queen's Regiment, which was recruited in Croydon and has always had a close connection with that town. For this reason, it was considered essential that centrally situated headquarters should be provided. In this closely built-up area it proved impossible to find a vacant site, and, after consideration of various alternative sites, it was decided to acquire the one in question, which contained fewer existing buildings than any of the alternatives. With the exception of four houses which are being retained as quarters, the buildings are not modern.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY TRAINING.

SPECIAL CONSTABLES.

Mr. Denville: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the case of a youth, a member of the special constabulary, who was anxious to join the Territorials, but was told by the chief of the special constabulary not to do so as men in the special constabulary would not be called up provided they were carrying out the duties required of them; and, as the young man now finds himself called upon to register under the Military Training Act, will he allow him to join the Territorials, which he is still keen to do?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am informed that there appears to have been some misapprehension as to the alleged statement. So far as the War Office is concerned, there is no apparent reason why this young man should not join the Territorial Army, unless or until he has been called up for Militia service, but service in the Territorial Army would not now exempt him from Militia service.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for War whether militiamen called up under the Military Training Act will be permitted to bring before the Military Service (Special Allowances) Advisory Committee, loss and hardships they have suffered through having been dismissed from their employment by reason of the fact that they are liable to be so called up, or through being refused employment for the same reason?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As the hon. Member will see from Part B of the relevant White Paper (Cmd. 6043), the Advisory Committee to which he refers can deal only with cases in which monetary assistance is needed by persons who are undergoing training. Such cases as those to which he refers are, therefore, not within its scope. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the provisions of Section 7 of the Military Training Act, and of the Regulations made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour under that Section (Statutory Rules and Orders, No. 625, 1939) in regard to dismissal from employment or failure to reinstate a man after the conclusion of his training. It is, of course, not in the power of the Government to compel a potential employer to engage a man not already in his service, whether or not he is liable to be called up as a militiaman.

Mr. Mander: If a man is in financial difficulties through having been dismissed from his job because he was liable to be called up, is there no tribunal to whom he can go and ask for an allowance?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir, there is, and I have answered that part of the question.

Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put the question to the Minister of Labour, who said that the matter did not come under him and it ought to be referred to the Secretary of State for War?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I think there is a slight misapprehension. There are two different sets of regulations. As I said in my answer, the advisory committee are there to deal with cases in which monetary assistance is needed by persons who are undergoing training. Their protection in employment depends on regulations made by the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Mander: The question relates to the man, called up and undergoing training, who finds himself in financial difficulties because of having been dismissed from his job, and I am asking to what tribunal can a man in these circumstances appeal for financial assistance?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I cannot add to the answer I have given.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention


has been drawn to the case of a Stirling shire militiaman, owner of a one-man business, who, on applying for a grant to enable him to maintain his business while on service, was given three months exemption to enable him to dispose of his business; and what action he will take to fulfil the undertaking that grants would be available for such cases?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The Hardship Committee, which deals only with postponement of service, postponed this man's service in order that he might make arrangements regarding his business. As regards monetary assistance, the man has been sent a form for the purpose of claiming special assistance, and, on return of the form, the claim will come before the Military Service (Special Allowances) Advisory Committee.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that this man was given three months in which to dispose of his business. In view of the hardship that is going to be imposed on very many young men throughout the country, can the right hon. Gentleman give the name of any young man in a one-man business who has been given any assistance to keep the business running while he is in the Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Here is a case where the man applied for postponement in order to make arrangements for the carrying on of his business by someone else, probably his brother. The question of the monetary assistance which he is claiming will receive the attention of the Committee to which I have referred.

DISCHARGED TERRITORIALS.

Mr. Young: asked the Secretary of State for War, what arrangements have been made to cover the case of those men under and of militia age who were discharged from the Territorial Army on the conversion of their units to other branches of the service, to which their own capabilities were not suited; and whether he proposes that such men should be exempted from militia service?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Under the Military Training Act such men are exempt from militia service only if they had completed four years' service in any of His Majesty's Reserve and Auxiliary Forces, or were service on 26th May last.

SCORSMEN, MANCHESTER

Mr. Fleming: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that numbers of Manchester youths of Scottish extraction have expressed a desire to serve in a Scottish regiment under the Military Training Act; and what steps he intends to take to enable them to join a Scottish Territorial battalion on completion of their six months' compulsory service?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Where possible, militiamen are posted for their six months' training to the unit or arm of the Service in which they wish to serve. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer I gave him on 20th June last.

Mr. Fleming: Will my right hon. Friend give his kind consideration to the very strong desire expressed by militiamen of Scottish extraction in Manchester, that on the completion of their Militia service they should have a chance of serving in a Scottish Territorial battalion in the Man chester area just as they do in Liverpool?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Men of Scottish ex traction will feel that desire whether or not they live in Manchester, and it would not be possible to start Scottish units everywhere, though I will give consideration to the wishes expressed by my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the London Scottish are a very excellent unit?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That fact has never been disputed.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not the fact that there is now a Scottish Brigade at the Ministry of Health?

CHOICE OF UNIT.

Mr. Groves: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Stanley Charles Chorley, 72, Stopford Road, E.13, possessing the use of only one eye, was passed Grade; 2, and on being asked his choice of the forces, decided Ordnance Corps, but has received orders to go to Devizes, on anti-aircraft searchlights; and whether he will cause investigation of this matter?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: A man with one good eye may be placed in Grade II, and anti aircraft units are open to Grade II men.


The number of men who chose the Royal Army Ordnance Corps was much in excess of the requirements of that Corps, and a selection had to be made of those whose qualifications seemed most suitable.

ST. JOHN AMBULANCE BRIGAD

Sir T. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for War the position of members of the St. John Ambulance Brigade who may come within the age of military ser vice consequent upon the outbreak of hostilities?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: In the case of any man who becomes a soldier in war, his previous training and experience will be taken into consideration with a view to allotting him to a branch of the Service where his capabilities can be best used.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

LAND COURT.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the earliest date at which a lay member of the Scottish Land Court is due to retire; whether the vacancy will be advertised; what method of selection will be adopted; and whether the successful candidate will be permitted to carry on any farms occupied by him at the time of his appointment?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): A lay member of the Scottish Land Court will retire under the age limit on 9th September next. In terms of the Statute, appointments to the Land Court are made by His Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, and my recommendation is made after such inquiry as may be necessary and after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate and with the Chairman of the Land Court. It has not hitherto been found necessary to advertise for applications. It is a condition of appointment that the person appointed shall give up all private business during his tenure of office.

Mr. Mathers: In view of the fact that so much of this Land Court work has to do with crofting tenancies, will the right hon. Gentleman use the opportunities of vacancies arising to appoint two lay members from the crofting community? Will he consult the crofting unions about these appointments?

Mr. Colville: I will bear in mind that consideration along with others which have to be taken into account in making the appointment.

BRACKEN.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that not only in the Highlands but all over Scotland the hills are being covered with bracken; whether he is aware that where there is bracken there is no feeding for sheep or cattle; and whether he will inform the House when he intends to take more active steps to exterminate this weed, either by making larger grants for the purpose or by other means?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has read the recent report of Professor W. G. R. Patterson, chairman of the Scottish Bracken Eradication Committee, to the effect that over 2,000,000 acres of farmland in Scotland have already been encroached upon by bracken; that bracken is getting such a hold that it is going to ruin our best sheep farms, and that unless the problem is dealt with seriously there is no future for sheep-farming as known to-day in Scotland; and whether, in view of the gravity of this report by an expert, he can announce any fresh plan for dealing with the problem?

Mr. Colville: I would refer to my reply to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) on 27th June.

Mr. Kirkwood: Has the right hon. Gentleman not seen the report which has been submitted by the Scottish Bracken Eradication Committee in which there is a suggestion by Professor Patterson that bracken should be attacked from the air, that it should be sprayed with sulphuric acid from the air? Cannot the Scottish Office do something to meet the expense of such a proposal?

Mr. Colville: I am aware of the report in question, and I have in mind the terrible trouble which bracken causes. The hon. Member will realise that a sum of £4,000 has been provided for bracken-cutting machines. and that efforts made to deal with bracken are being made. Principal Patterson recommended the extension of the use of cutting machines.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Secretary of State not aware that £4,000 is a mere bagatelle, and is of no use in counteracting this terrible menace which is overrunning Scotland at the moment?

Mr. Neil Maclean: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I must again point out the number of questions on the Order Paper.

HOUSING.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has reached any decision regarding the provision of subsidies to enable local authorities to undertake, respectively, the reconditioning of houses and the erection of houses for occupation by tenants who do not come within the scope of the Acts relating to slum-clearance or overcrowding; and whether any report is to be made avail able of the result of the conversation with representatives of the Convention of Royal Burghs in Edinburgh on 14th July?

Mr. Colville: At the meeting referred to I intimated that, while I did not minimise the case submitted by the convention, I could not at present promise to introduce the necessary legislation in view of the urgent need for making progress with slum-clearance and overcrowding work, and the difficult labour position. I promised, however, to keep the local authorities' representations fully in mind for consideration at a more opportune time.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind the fact that in some districts in Scotland overcrowding has been more or less overcome, and that the real problem is the one mentioned in the question?

Mr. Colville: I will bear what the hon. Member says in mind.

Mr. Allan Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of houses completed by the Scottish Special Housing Association to date; the number under construction at the pre sent time; and the number contracted for but not yet begun?

Mr. Colville: At the 30th June, 1939, 66 houses had been completed; 1,498 were under construction and 2,320 were contracted for but not yet begun.

Mr. R. Gibson: How many of these houses are timber houses?

Mr. Colville: The houses completed are of timber, and of the 1,498 under construction, 414 are timber and 1,084 are concrete.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that is being made by this association?

Mr. Colville: No, Sir, I should like to see faster progress, and the association assure me that they have the construction of a much larger number of houses in contemplation.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of working-class houses for letting purposes built by private enterprise in Scotland for the last 10 years and the equivalent figures for England and Wales?

Mr. Colville: The number of working-class houses built for letting by private enterprise in Scotland since the 1st January, 1934, is 8,436. Prior to that date the number of private enterprise houses built for letting was not separately recorded. The total number of working-class houses, however, which have been built by private enterprise in Scotland from 1929 to June, 1939, is 67,400. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

HIGHLANDS.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that subsidies have been granted to coal and shipbuilding, and are now granted to the producers of sheep, cattle, sugar, wheat, barley, and oats, he will consider encouraging resettlement of the Highlands of Scotland by making grants for each child of parents living in the Highlands, thereby ensuring the increase of a now diminishing population which has in the past proved of great value to the country?

Mr. Colville: I share fully the hon. Member's desire to maintain a thriving population in the Highlands, but I am afraid the scheme which ho suggests— which could not in my view be confined to a particular area— is not practicable.

Mr. Kirkwood: Seeing that the right hon. Gentleman, as he says, shares my


anxiety about this matter, will he not demonstrate to all the world that he is going to put his anxiety into practice on behalf of the Highlands of Scotland?

Mr. Colville: There is a later question on the Paper on this subject.

Mr. R. Gibson: Is the Secretary of State aware that already considerable sums are being paid for boarding out children from Glasgow and Greenock in these Highland homes, and would it not be much better if such grants were made to the heads of these Highland homes to support and nurture their own children?

Mr. Colville: That would raise many difficulties.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are some people in Glasgow who think that they should get a subsidy, too?

Mr Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to be in a position to make a statement upon the Government's policy for the Highlands; and whether opportunity will be afforded to discuss the statement when made?

Mr. Colville: It is my intention to make a statement before the Recess.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, which asks whether an opportunity will be afforded to discuss this?

Mr. Colville: That is not a question I can answer. It is a matter to be dealt with through the usual channels.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is not the right hon. Gentleman in a position to give us an idea of the date when he will be able to make a statement? He said that he would do so before the Recess, but what does that mean? Are we to have this statement in time to have an opportunity of discussing it?

Mr. Colville: I shall make the statement at the earliest possible moment, but I cannot give an exact date.

SCOTTISH OFFICE (STAFF).

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the respective total numbers of staff of all grades of the Scottish Office at present engaged in

London and Scotland; also the equivalent numbers anticipated after the opening of St. Andrews House; whether St. Andrews House will accommodate all such staff in Scotland as it is desirable to house in a headquarters establishment; and if not, the percentage of those who will be so accommodated?

Mr. Colville: I assume that my hon. Friend refers only to the staff of the existing Scottish Office, or the Scottish Home Department which will be formed by the merger of the Scottish Office, the Fishery Board and the Prisons Department, and not to the staff of all the Departments for which I am responsible. On this assumption the answer to the first part of the question is 106 and 44 respectively. The numbers of the headquarters staff of the Scottish Home Department to be employed in London and Scotland respectively will be approximately 70 and 164. The staff to be employed in London in cludes, in addition to the Defence and Fire Brigades Division of the Scottish Home Department, the Ministers' private secretaries with their clerks and typists, the clerks and typists assisting the London liaison officers of all the four main Scottish Departments, and all messengers and cleaners at Dover House. Except for two officers engaged on special duty, all the headquarters staff to be employed in Scotland will be accommodated in St. Andrews' House.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that the new building is ready, is the Minister going to make any arrangement for occasional meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in the new building in Edinburgh?

Mr. Colville: That is another question.

CAMPING, LOCH LONG (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that five young apprentice engineers were prosecuted at Dunbarton Justice of the Peace Court on 6th July, and fined 7s. 6d. each for camping on the foreshore at Glen-mallow, Loch Long; that this site has been used for many years as a camping ground; that no notice or warning of objection to the site as camping ground has been affixed nearby by the proprietors; that there is no fence or indication of boundary; and as this was these lads' first offence, he will take steps to have the fines remitted?

Mr. Colville: I am informed that 13 persons were prosecuted at this court on 6th July for camping without permission on land at Glenmallon, that in one case the charge was withdrawn, that 10 persons pled guilty and were fined 7s. 6d. or five days, and that the cases against the other two were continued until 10th August. I am obtaining a report from the justices on the cases already decided, and thereafter I will communicate further with the right hon. Member.

Mr. Johnston: In view of the fact that tremendous public feeling has been aroused by these proceedings, that 80 percent, of the young men involved were Militia men, that no notice was stuck up, that they have dug up an old Act that is 75 years old, and that no prosecution was taken while Sir Iain Colquhoun, the proprietor, was well and only when the man was stricken down were these disgraceful proceedings begun, cannot the right hon. Gentleman take some steps, in the interests of public decency, to get them stopped?

Mr. Colville: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment on the action of the magistrates until the inquiry is completed. I will bear in mind what he has said.

Mr. Maclean: Will the Secretary of State, when making a further statement on the matter, state who were the justices of the peace who formed this particular court?

Mr. Colville: I must look into the case first, and I am pursuing my inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

ACCIDENT, ASTLEY GREEN COLLIERY.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation have carried a resolution asking him to have a formal investigation under Section 83 of the Mines Act, 1911, into the cause of the accident at Astley Green Colliery on 6th June, in which five men lost their lives; and will he consider doing this, as it is felt it would give greater satisfaction than having an inquiry under Section 82?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend has received

a request to this effect from the Mine-workers' Federation. The procedure under Section 82 of the Act which he had proposed to adopt, would enable a full report to be published much sooner than would be possible under the procedure of Section 83; but if after the inquest is finished it is felt that there are reasons for holding a further public inquiry, he will certainly reconsider the matter. I have been asked to suggest that in the meantime the workers' representatives should bring to the notice of the Divisional Inspector any special aspects of the accident to the investigation of which they attach particular importance.

Mr. Tinker: While I am sorry that the Secretary for Mines is not present, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will convey to his hon. Friend the serious feelings of the mineworkers with regard to this matter and urge him, if possible, to have a formal inquiry in order to give satisfaction to this great body of men.

INSPECTIONS.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of His Majesty's inspectors there are in the whole of the coalfields; and the number of inspections made by them during day and night shifts, respectively, in the year 1938?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The number of His Majesty's inspectors engaged upon the inspection of coal mines in 1938 was 104, and during that year they made 19,788 inspections on day shifts, 2,291 on after noon shifts, and 2,464 inspections on night shifts.

Mr. Stewart: Do the figures show an increase in the number of inspections made in 1937?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir. The number of inspections on night shifts shows a substantial increase— 2,464 as compared with 1,654.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of inspections made by His Majesty's inspectors in the collieries of County Durham in the years 1937, 1938, and to a convenient date this year, together with the number of such inspections made during the afternoon and night shifts, respectively?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The total numbers of inspections made at collieries in County Durham during the years 1937,


1938 and during the six months ended 30th June, 1939, were 2,708, 2,681 and 1,495 respectively. Inspections made on afternoon shifts numbered 108,201 and 149 respectively, and those on night shifts 186,240 and 211 respectively.

SILICOSIS.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of men certified in the Durham coalfield to be suffering from silicosis during each of the years 1935 to date?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: As the answer involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Coal miners in Durham certified under the Various Industries (Silicosis) Schemes, 1931 and 1934.


Year.
Disablement Cases.
Cases of death not previously certified as disabled.


1935
2
—


1936
2
2


1937
1
—


1938
1
—


1939* (to 31st May).
1
1


*Provisional figures.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of workers employed in the coal-mining industry in Scotland, certified to be suffering from silicosis, in each of the years from 1935 to 1939?

Mr. Hudson: The number of coal miners in Scotland certified under the Various Industries (Silicosis) Schemes, 1931 and 1934, was one in each of the years 1935 and 1936, two in each of the years 1937 and 1938, and three, according to provisional figures, in the first five months of 1939.

Mr. Kennedy: Is the right hon. Gentle man aware that there are in Scotland no facilities for the treatment of this disease similar to those in operation in England and elsewhere?

CLOSED COLLIERIES.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of collieries that have been closed in Great Britain during the three years ended the last convenient

date; the number of same which have not been reopened; and the aggregate number of men directly affected?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT

Mr. Day: Cannot the Minister give an answer to the last part of the question?

Mr. G. Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many mines there are in Southwark?

Following is the reply:

During the three years ended 1st July, 1939, 207 pits in Great Britain, each employing 10 or more persons, and in the aggregate 25,155 persons, have been closed and not reopened; but it would be wrong to assume that all these persons were rendered idle, as, during this period, there has been in the industry as a whole a net increase of 15,600 in the average number of wage-earners on colliery books.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT BILLS (INTRODUCTION, HOUSE OF LORDS).

Sir Joseph Leech: asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to anticipate and relieve the pressure of business on this House, he will consider arranging that a larger number of suitable Bills shall be introduced first into the other House, particularly those of which the broad principles are not of a contentious nature?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I would remind my hon. Friend that many Bills depend upon Financial Resolutions, and for this and other reasons it has not been practicable this Session to present more Bills in another place.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS (CIVIL DEFENCE DUTIES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what Members of the Government will have to have special arrangements made for the carrying on of their duties in the event of war, owing to the fact that they hold positions in the Civil Defence organisation; and what arrangements are contemplated?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what I have already said in reply to questions on this subject.

Mr. Mander: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of his own supporters are keenly interested in this question and are not at all satisfied with the evasive replies that have been given?

The Prime Minister: I think that the question has been put only by the hon. Member.

Mr. Mander: Does that mean that arrangements will be made too late, as usual?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LOANS).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what means the Public Works Loans Board raises the money to lend to public authorities; and what is the average rate of interest charged on the loans which, on 31st March, 1939, totalled £311,021,449 19s. Id.?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The moneys lent by the Public Works Loan Commissioners are provided by advances made to them from the Local Loans Fund. Apart from repayments of the principal of existing loans, that fund is financed by the issue of stock. The average rate of interest charged (calculated on the amount out standing on 31st March,1939), is £4 15s. 10d. percent. A good deal more than half of these loans were made before the fall of interest rates in 1932, and the hon. Member will realise that the bulk of this money has been expended on schemes that earn some form of subsidy.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer say why local authorities should not be allowed to raise their own loans and issue their own paper money as in other countries, and so avoid the moneylenders' racket?

Sir J. Simon: That subject has been fully discussed on a great many occasions, and I will give the hon. Gentle man references if I may.

Oral Answers to Questions — DERATING.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of rates relief which industry has received since the passing of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928; the cost to the Treasury in reimbursements to local

authorities; and whether, in view of the burden of rearmament on the taxpayers of the country, he will consider the repeal of the Derating Acts?

Sir J. Simon: The total amount of relief from rates afforded by the derating provisions of the Local Government Act, 1929, was at that time £22,292,203, of which about 60 percent, related to industrial hereditaments. The relief in Scotland afforded by the corresponding provisions in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, was £3,341,403, of which about 50 percent, related to industrial hereditaments. Equivalent sums are included in the total Exchequer grants to local authorities under these Acts. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR RISKS INSURANCE.

Sir William Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the unfairness to individuals, societies, and companies who happen to hold property in vulnerable areas as compared to others whose property is situated in areas not likely to be subject to air attack in the event of war, the Government will consider the desirability of some form of compulsory insurance by all property-owners throughout the country against war risks, with a view to forming the nucleus of a national fund from which claims would be payable to persons whose property has been damaged or destroyed during hostilities, provision being made that the Government should have a first charge over all property thus reinstated in order to secure the Exchequer against having incurred liabilities which were not compatible with the circumstances of the country when the total losses have been ascertained at the end of a war?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade yesterday during-the Debate on the War Risks Insurance Bill.

Sir W. Davison: Will it be borne in mind that a premium of only £ percent, on £10,000,000,000, the estimated value of property in this country stated by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday, would produce an income of £50,000,000 a year, and that on a working


man's house of £500, there would have to be paid only £2 10s. a year, or less than is a week? Would not that be a very valuable thing in forming a nucleus fund, the Government helping it out?

Sir J. Simon: I am sure that consideration will be borne in mind.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it not also a fact that ½ percent, would be equivalent to at least twice the amount of ordinary fire insurance rates?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

BOOKMAKERS (FINES).

Mr. Viant: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been directed to the decision of the Com missioners of Income Tax that in future, bookmakers, whose runners are found guilty and fined, may deduct such fines as expenses for the purpose of Income Tax assessment; and is it his intention to alter this anomaly in the near future by regulation or otherwise?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the recent decision that fines paid by bookmakers will count for relief in Income Tax; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Sir J. Simon: I assume that the decision referred to is one given by General Commissioners of Taxes on a particular appeal, to the effect that in the computation of the profits of a street bookmaker for assessment to Income Tax under Schedule D sums paid by him to his runners in reimbursement of fines imposed upon them were deductible expenses, as being payments made wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the book maker's business. I do not find in the decision any reason for proposing an alteration of the relevant rule of the Income Tax Acts, which is of general application in the computation of profits of trades and business for Schedule D purposes.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much he is losing by this decision?

Sir J. Simon: No I could not say.

Mr. Crossley: Why not legalise book makers?

Mr. Viant: Will it be in order for a motorist who is penalised; say for obstruction of the highway, to adopt a similar principle?

Sir J. Simon: I think he would have to show that the outlay was "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of his business."

Mr. Poole: Is not the ultimate result that the Exchequer is paying in part fines imposed on those who have committed offences against the law?

SICKNESS AND DISABLEMENT BENEFIT.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the decision of the Special Commissioners for Income Tax, given on the 11th instant, in the case of Mr. Forsyth, was based upon Case 3, or, alternatively, upon Case 6, of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918?

Sir J. Simon: This decision is, I under stand, now under appeal to the High Court. The decision was that the payments to which the appeal proceedings, related were assessable to tax under Case III of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918.

Mr. Benn: That is to say the decision was that sickness benefit was; an annual payment in this case?

Sir J. Simon: I am not prepared to discuss a decision of the Special Commissioners, more particularly decision which is under appeal.

Mr. Benn: As the right lion. Gentleman has mentioned the fact that this case is under appeal, may I ask whether this particular claimant is being made to pay the amount pending the appeal or is the claim against him being waived until the appeal has been heard?

Sir J. Simon: It is quite usual for persons to appeal in these cases, and I have no doubt that in this case the appeal is being conducted according to the usual procedure.

Mr. Buchanan: In view of he wide spread interest which is. taken in this case, will the right hon. Gentleman see that the decision is published in order that it may be perused by those concerned?

Sir J. Simon: The decision of the High. Court will, of course, be published substantially, and I dare say it will attract some attention. I think I am right in saying— indeed, I know I am right in saying that the decision by the Special Commissioners was an oral decision, and was not an elaborate decision. As there is to be an appeal, I think it is plainly right that we ought not to alter the existing practice until we see what the High Court does.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman keeps on speaking about altering the existing practice, but is it not the fact that in this case the claimant had six times been told by the collector that he was not liable, and on the seventh occasion was made to pay the six years' arrears, and that that was the alteration of practice?

Sir J. Simon: I really think it is better, if I may suggest it to the right hon. Gentleman, not to attempt to discuss the matter while the case is under appeal.

Mr. Benn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in a case where a payment is held to be liable to Income Tax tinder Case 3 of Schedule D of the Income Tax Act of 1918, it is the practice to make it incumbent upon the body making the payment, under Rule 21 of that Act, to deduct tax there from at the time of making the payment?

Sir J. Simon: In the types of cases of annual payments such as those which I assume the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, for example, payments of benefits by friendly societies to persons many of whom are in receipt of incomes below the exemption limit, it is not the practice to require deduction of tax under Rule 21 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, by the body making the payment, as that method would involve unnecessary trouble both to the recipients and to the Revenue. The alternative method is followed of assessment under Case III of Schedule D of that Act on such recipients as are effectively liable.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the appropriate society is to know whether the recipient of benefit is under the Income Tax limit or not, in order to decide whether to deduct at source or not?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think the hon. Member followed my answer, which was to the effect that there was no need to

deduct at source, and that the alternative method was followed, in cases where it was necessary, of assessing directly. No one is asking them to deduct anything at the source.

Mr. Benn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the decision of the Inland Revenue in the case of disabled members of the United Law Clerks Society, conveyed to that society in a letter dated 28th April, 1930, over the signature of the principal inspector of taxes to the effect that their disablement benefit or a payment dependent upon continued bad health would not be income liable to taxation on receipt by the beneficiaries concerned, stills holds good not withstanding the decision given by the Special Commissioners on 11th July,1939?

Sir J. Simon: As I have just said, the decision of the Special Commissioners is now under appeal and I feel a difficulty in discussing it. I understand that the decision supports the view taken by the Board of Inland Revenue that certain benefit payments of an annual character constitute income for purposes of Income Tax. The letter of 28th April, 1930, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, was primarily directed to a different question, namely, the title to relief from Income Tax in respect of contributions paid by members to the society concerned. It went on, however, to state that certain benefits would not be income liable to taxation. That statement was made with out qualification as to whether such benefit payments were of a temporary character or of a continuing character such as to render them annual payments within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts. In so far as the statement can be read to apply to payments of the latter type, it does not correctly represent the view held by the board since 1925 and the general practice followed ever since that date.

Mr. Benn: In view of the answers to these questions, does the right hon. Gentleman still say that this case involves no change of practice on the part of the Inland Revenue?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRAZIL (LOANS).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he now has any statement to make upon the position of the Brazilian loans issued in the United Kingdom?

Sir J. Simon: On 1st July the Brazilian Government informed His Majesty's Government that they would welcome a visit of a representative of the British bondholders in order that the situation might be examined with the Minister of Finance. It is understood that a similar invitation has been extended to the French and American bondholders. The matter is receiving the urgent consideration of the Council of Foreign Bondholders.

Mr. R. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, in connection with any negotiations regarding this question, making the settlement of these matters a factor in bringing about an increase of trade between this country and Brazil?

Oral Answers to Questions — BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the political changes that have taken place in Europe during the last few years have so affected the usefulness of the Bank for International Settlements as to justify the severance of British connection with this body, he will now take that step?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on Thursday last.

Mr. Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that was no reply at all; that it simply referred me to an earlier reply which, again, did not answer the question in the slightest; and can he not now give me an answer to my question?

Sir J. Simon: I think the hon. Member will agree that the previous question, at any rate, was in practically identical terms. The consideration raised by this question have been stated several times to the House, and I have no further announcement to make on the subject.

Mr. Strauss: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one good reason for severing the British connection with this body is that British association with this bank has given it a prestige which is dangerous and which it certainly does not merit under present conditions?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SECURITIES (UNITED KINGDOM HOLDINGS).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give

any estimate of the present value of holdings in the United Kingdom of foreign securities for which a free market exists in the United States of America?

Sir J. Simon: The matter is one to which close and constant attention is given, but I do not think it is desirable to publish official estimates.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (ASSETS).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government that established claims against assets covered by the Czech-Slovakia (Restrictions of Banking Accounts, etc.) Act shall rank pari passu or otherwise; and whether he is now able to give further particulars of assets and claims?

Sir J. Simon: As stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Willesden(Mr. Hammersley) on Thursday last, a scheme will be drawn up and submitted to the House. I would ask my hon. Friend to await this scheme.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer in form us whether the liability incurred by the former Czecho-Slovakian Government by their guarantee of the Austrian 4½ percent, loan has been taken into account in assessing the assets of the Czecho Government in this country?

Sir J. Simon: I could not answer that question off-hand, but I think ill the relevant figures are being taken into consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. MARGARET'S CHURCH, WESTMINSTER.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether some additional provision for hon. Members of this House will be made at St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, in view of the provision which is being made for members of the Order of the British Empire?

Captain Crookshank: I am assured that the provision for hon. Members would not in practice be rendered inadequate by the adoption of the scheme how being considered.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind the


fact that the feelings of hon. Members in many parts of the House have been somewhat hurt by the unhappy way in which this matter has been handled?

Captain Crookshank: It has nothing to do with me. Neither I nor any other Member of the Government is in the least concerned in this.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ask the appropriate authorities to take note of the fact to which I have drawn attention?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE (FINANCIAL RELIEFS).

Mr. Barnes: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total cost to the Treasury for grants, subsidies, rating, and other financial reliefs granted to agriculture for the period 1930–31 to 1938–30?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information

£


Beet Sugar
26,534,886


Beet Sugar Rebate of Taxation
17,553,000


Cattle Industry, payments to Producers
18,114,794


Milk
5,696,861


Land Fertility Improvement
1,961,513


Oats and Barley
164,868


Agricultural Credits. Losses on repayment before due dates of loans made by Public Works Loans Commissioners
328,490



 £70,354,412

It is not possible to express in terms of money the benefit which agriculture has derived from derating during these years. The amount included in the block grant in respect of the year 1928–29 on the basis of benefit to agriculture in that year totalled approximately £10,800,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SPECIALITY DYESTUFFS (MANUFACTURE).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) from which country the specialists and chemists came from who have been engaged at the Trafford chemical factory during the last 12 months; where it is intended that the chemists shall be engaged from in the

future; where has the bulk of the machinery been obtained from; and is he satisfied with the efficacy of the arrangements;
(2) what the arrangements are between the I. G Farbenindustrie A. G., and the imperial Chemical Industries in the Trafford Chemical Company; will the arrangements; and will firms be affected who manufactured dyestuffs and those products for which the license has been stopped under the Dye-Stuffs Act?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): As regards the operation of the Trafford Chemical Company, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him on 13th June. I have received no representations in the matter from other dyestuffs manufacturers in the United Kingdom, and I see no reason why the establishment of a company devoted primarily to the manufacture of speciality dyestuffs hitherto imported should prejudice the interests of other makers. The company has not yet started manufacture, but I understand that it is the intention to engage a small number of German technical experts and that some of the machinery will be imported from Germany.

Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep-rooted feeling that exists in this area because these men have been brought from Germany; does he not think our young men who have been trained in universities and secondary schools are sufficiently developed to undertake work of this character; has he seen the memorandum sent to Members of this House this week by the Economic League; and, in view of the large amount of espionage work that is being carried out by certain agents of a certain Power, does he not think that this matter requires dealing with?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. I am not aware of the deep feeling in the neighbourhood, and certainly I regard the establishment in this country of the manufacture of speciality dyes, of which up to now we are dependent for supplies from abroad, as very much in the national interest.

Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that when this material is manufactured it does not go out of the country?

Mr. Stanley: The purpose of manufacturing it here is to use it here.

Mr. E. Smith: German spies.

MILLERS' MUTUAL ASSOCIATION.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up a Departmental Committee to in quire into the workings of the Millers' Mutual Association?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Millers' Mutual Association is an association for fixing the price of flour and is directly responsible for the price of bread not being reduced, and that the matter cannot be allowed to stand where it is?

Mr. Stanley: I disagree with all my hon. Friend's statements.

Mr. De la Bère: Owing to the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Macquisten: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the attack on the people's food by this association, he will consider calling in Scotland Yard to deal with the situation? The offence is rank.

COTTON YARN AND MANUFACTURES (IMPORTS).

Sir Percy Harris: asked the President of the Board of Trade, for the year 1938, the value of the total imports of cotton yarn, cotton piece goods, and made-up goods of cotton, or of which the chief material is cotton; and the value of such imports from Japan?

Mr. Stanley: During the year 1938, total imports into the United Kingdom of cotton yarn and manufactures (except apparel and embroidery) were valued at £3,136,000, of which imports consigned from Japan (including Formosa) amounted to £402,000.

Mr. Burke: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the amount of Japanese cloth that comes into this country from Dublin?

GERMANY.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value

of the raw material bought by Germany from the United Kingdom since the signing of the Anglo-German Trade Agreement of 1934; and what proportion in value could be utilised for armament purposes?

Mr. Stanley: During the period November, 1934, to June, 1939,inclusive, the declared value of exports from the United Kingdom to Germany of goods classified as "Raw materials and articles mainly unmanufactured" amounted to about £54,000,000, including re-exports valued at about £21,000,000. As regards the second part of the question, it is not possible to distinguish the exports of materials for the manufacture of armaments from those for other manufactures.

Mr. Gallacher: Does that mean that all of the material could have been used for armaments?

Mr. Stanley: If the. hon. Member thinks that coal, which forms the great bulk of this material, could be used for the manufacture of armaments, the answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. Galiacher: Surely it is easy to separate coal from iron ore?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total of free sterling obtained by Germany through her trade with the United Kingdom since the signing of the Anglo-German Trade Agreement of 1934?

Mr. Stanley: The whole of the sterling from German exports to the United Kingdom is at the free disposal of Germany subject to the obligations undertaken in the Anglo-German Payments and Transfer Agreements. It is estimated that between 1st November, 1934, and 31st May, 1939, Germany received about £146,000,000 from her exports to the United Kingdom. During this period her Payments Agreement obligations have required the provision of sterling for trade payments to an amount of about £87,000,000, but in fact United Kingdom exports and re-exports. have absorbed at least £135,000,000. Germany has also certain financial obligations which, together with miscellaneous financial. and commercial payments of unknown amount, would absorb most of the balance

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (IMPORTS).

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total imports of positive and negative cinematograph films imported into Great Britian and Northern Ireland, both as to quantity and declared value, registered as consigned from the United States of America and/or Germany, for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

Statement showing the quantity and declared value of. exposed cinematograph films imported into the United Kingdom during the year 1938, and consigned from the United States and Germany, respectively.


Description.
Consigned from.
Quantity.
Declared value.


Cinematograph films—



Thous. Linear ft. of the standard width of 1⅜ in.
£


Positives
…
…
…
United States
…
13,516
75,908


Germany
…
…
562
5,075


Negatives
…
…
…
United States
…
1,123
13,865


Germany
…
…
77
1,871


NOTE.— These particulars are provisional.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIT TRUSTS.

Sir J. Leech: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent disclosures concerning the affairs of the British General Fixed Trusts, Limited, he will so frame the regulations under the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act that no unit trust will be recognised unless the escrow fund is adequate for the future service of the unit trust covered by the Act and is retained in the hands of the trustees of the trust?

Mr. Stanley: Under Section 16 of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939, the Board of Trade would have to be satisfied, before declaring any unit trust scheme to be an authorised unit trust scheme, that the trust deed makes provision to the satisfaction of the Board for the matters specified in the Schedule to the Act, paragraph 4 of which provides for the establishment of a fund to be applied in defraying the expenses of administration of the trust and for regulating the application of that fund. The Board of Trade would consequently require to be satisfied that the service of the trust is safeguarded in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister how far it is proposed to proceed to-night?

Mr. Stanley: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that tabular statement shows the amount of film by linear feet?

Following is the answer:

The Prime Minister: It is proposed to suspend the 11 o'clock Rule in order to obtain the Report and Third Reading of the Agricultural Development Bill, the Second Reading of the Senior Public Elementary Schools (Liverpool) Bill, and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution. I understand that the Liverpool Bill is an agreed Measure. We also hope to be able to obtain the Report stage of the Money Resolutions which were considered in Committee last night, as well as the remaining stages of the Overseas Trade Guarantees Bill. I do not think these latter items raise any points of controversy.

Colonel Sir John Shute: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House when the Committee stage of the House of Commons Members Fund Bill will be taken? Will it be this week?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I hope there may be an opportunity to get the Committee stage tomorrow, after the Shipping Bill.

Sir Irving Albery: Can my right hon. Friend say at what time it will be taken? Will it be after 11 o'clock?

Motion made, and Question put,
 That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 134.

Division No. 245.]
AYES.
[3.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maitland, Sir Adam


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Ellis, Sir G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Emery, J. F.
Markham, S. F.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Marsden, Commander A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Assheton, R.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Evans, Colonel A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Findlay, Sir E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Fleming, E. L.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Fox, Sir G. W G.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P H.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Beechman, N. A.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Bernays, R. H.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Granville, E. L.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Blair, Sir R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, R, V.
Patrick, C. M.


Boulton, W. W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Peake, O.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Peat, C. U.


Brass, Sir W.
Hambro, A. V.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hammersley, S. S.
Petherick, M.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hannah, I. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Pilkington, R.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Harbord, Sir A.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Brown, Rt. Hon, E. (Leith)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Porritt, R. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Bullock, Capt. M.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Radford, E. A.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rankin, Sir R.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Butcher, H. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Hepworth, J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Higgs, W. F.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Carver, Major W. H.
Holdsworth, H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cary, R. A.
Holmes, J. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hopkinson, A.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Channon, H.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Rowlands, G.


Christie, J. A.
Hunloke, H. P.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hunter, T.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Jennings, R.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Keeling, E. H.
Salt, E. W.


Colman, N. C. D.
Kellett, Major E. O.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Scott, Lord William


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Kimball, L.
Selley, H. R.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Knox, Major-Genera) Sir A. W. F.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Crossley, A. C.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Davidson, Viscountess
Levy, T.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lewis, O.
Snadden, W. McN.


De la Bère, R.
Liddall, W. S.
Somerville, Sir A. A. (Windsor)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, K. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Danville, Alfred
Lipson, D. L.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Doland, G. F.
Little, J.
Spens, W. P.


Donner, P. W.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Loftus, P. C.
Stewart, J, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Drewe, C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Storey, S.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Duggan, H. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Duncan, J. A. L.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Dunglass, Lord
McKie, J. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Eastwood, J. F.
Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Eckersley, P. T.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.







Thorneycroft, G. E. P.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Touche, G. C.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Train, Sir J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Tree, A. R. L. F.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
York, C.


Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C
Wells, Sir Sydney
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)



Turton, R. H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.


Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan






NOES.


Acland, Sir Ft. T. D.
Granfell, D. R.
Poole, C. C.


Adams,D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Price, M. P.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pritt, D. N,


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Riley, B.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapal)
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Hardie, Agnes
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barnes, A. J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barr, J.
Hayday, A.
Sanders, W. S.


Batey, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Shinwell, E.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Simpson, F. B.


Bann, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Bevan, A.
Isaacs, G. A.
Sloan, A.


Broad, F. A.
Jagger, J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Buchanan, G.
John, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lnes- (K'ty)


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cape, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse. W S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stephen, C.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Stokes, R. R.


Collindridge, F.
Leach, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lunn, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tomlinson, G.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Walker, J.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mander, G. le M.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Badwellty)
Mathers, G.
White, H, Graham


Fletcher Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Foot, D. M.
Montague, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.



Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parker, J.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.


Greenwood, Rt, Hon. A.
Pearson, A.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Port Glasgow Burgh and Harbour Order Confirmation Bill.

Stirling Burgh Order Confirmation Bill.

Newquay and District Water Bill, without Amendment.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Hemel Hempstead Water) Bill, with an Amendment.

Bristol Waterworks Bill, with Amendments.

Charitable Collections (Regulation) Bill (changed to "House to House Collections Bill").

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (HEMEL HEMPSTEAD WATER) BILL.

Lords Amendment to be considered To-morrow.

WATER SUPPLY BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) and on Consideration, to be printed. [Bill 202.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.— (Provision as to wages.)

No subsidy payment under this Act shall be made in relation to any farm unless the appropriate Minister is satisfied that during the period for which the subsidy payment is to be reckoned, every adult person employed for wages on the farm was assured of an average wage of not less than forty shillings per week.— [Mr. T. Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.58 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to provide that no subsidy shall be paid under this Bill unless every adult person employed for wages on the farm is assured of an average wage of not less than 40s. per week. Two years ago a similar Clause was moved in this House, and a full-dress Debate took place, and on that occasion expressions of opinion came from all parts of the House that the agricultural worker was worth at least £2 a week and ought to have a far higher wage than that, and certainly far higher than he is receiving at the present time. In Committee up stairs last week, when this Clause was debated, opinions were expressed by hon. Members opposite to the effect that the Clause ought to be carried, and some hon. Members stated that in their part of the country this figure could be paid. When the Division was taken it was rather significant that we had the biggest vote of any in the history of the Committee, and the Government Whips were at some pains to fetch in their forces in order to ensure that the new Clause was not carried. When the result was announced it was found that the new Clause had been defeated by 21 votes to 17. That being so, we feel justified in pursuing the matter further on the Report stage of the Bill.
I know the argument that the Minister will use. I listened to him in Standing Committee, and I have been reading his speech again in order to refresh my memory. We shall be told that however desirable is legislation for ensuring a minimum wage to the agricultural worker,

this is not the right way to do it. But I am bound to say that the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère) put his finger on the spot when he said, "It never appears to be the right time to do the right thing for the agricultural worker." I hope that this afternoon we shall have not only a thorough discussion of the new Clause, but that we shall get from hon. Members opposite support for it, and an admission that the agricultural worker is the equal of the industrial worker and that the ought to have immediately a guarantee of a minimum of £2 a week.
There are some things about which we are all agreed. I know hon. Members opposite well enough to know that they believe the agricultural worker is a skilled worker; they recognise that work on the land is a skilled occupation. They also recognise that the agricultural worker in this country is as good as any to be found in the world. They agree that, whatever may be said about the economic position of agriculture, we have an excellent soil, and an excellent climate speaking relatively, and that we produce from that soil some of the best produce and the finest stock in the world. As I said in the Standing Committee, if anyone doubts that statement he has only to attend the Royal Show or any county agricultural show for proof of what I have said. But with all these advantages, natural and otherwise, the one thing that the land of this country has never yet produced has been a decent wage for the agricultural worker. Historically and to-day it is the Cinderella of all industries, and yet the agricultural worker is the most important man there is in industry. He supplies the first human needs, and if war came the nation would recognise his importance in industry.
At the same time there are one or two questions that have to be answered. I know that when arguing for a wage in crease, whether before employers or in this House, one must have some regard to the capacity of an industry to pay the wage demanded. We are in the unfortunate position that we have no reliable statistics to tell us exactly what is the economic position of agriculture or what are the costs of production. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture had the privilege of attending an Imperial Conference in New South Wales. If he had made any inquiries in that State


he would have found farmers who would have told him exactly what they believed to be the cost of sheep, mutton, butter, cheese, and of nearly all their products. I went round some of the farms in that State and in Victoria with members of the Agricultural Research Council, who told me accurately what they regarded as fair prices for their commodities. They knew exactly what prices were ruling in the market and knew whether they were making a profit or a loss. In this country we have no such reliable statistics. Indeed in the Standing Committee I asked the Minister whether he could tell me when last agriculture in this country was prosperous. He said he could not remember. 
We have to-day, so far as we can gather, an average agricultural wage in the United Kingdom of 34s. 9,d. for a week of about 50 to 51 hours. I believe it costs more than two guineas a week to keep a man in gaol. That figure of 34s. 9d. is far too low. It must be re membered that in the countryside during the past two or three years there has been built a different type of house which costs the, agricultural worker in rent more than he formerly paid. I think I am right in saying that the average rent paid is in the region of 5s. 6d. and 6s. a week, including rates; so that, deducting national health insurance and unemployment insurance and 6s. for the rent, the agricultural worker goes home with about 28s. a week. I have said that a modern type of house has been built for farm labourers. In Norfolk only a fortnight ago I saw houses that were let at from 5s. 6d. to 6s. a week. I would like to see all the farm workers get away for ever from the old 3s. a week cottage. It was a scandal that he should have had to live in such a type of house. We have not to blind ourselves to certain facts. There are many men working on the land who receive more than 34s. gd. a week — special classes such as stockmen, shepherds, horsemen, cowmen, wagoners. In Cumberland and Westmorland a man is paid 42s. a week, but he has to work 62 hours a week, seven days a week.
I have here a list of the wages paid in the United Kingdom under the awards of wages boards to the special classes. When we come to ask the question whether or not the industry can afford to pay higher wages there are no reliable statistics

available and one has to make a few estimates. There are in this country 690,000 people employed in agriculture. Eighteen years ago there were 300,000 more than that total employed, The decline in the number of men working on the land may be a prime factor in making up hon. Members' minds when they have to consider voting on this new Clause. If we deduct from the 690,000 the relatives of farmers who do not work for wages in the ordinary sense we get into the region of 500,000. If we say that the wages bill of all those engaged in agriculture is in the region of £60,000,000 a year we shall not be far wrong. Then we have to remember that the State in directly and directly has given a good deal of assistance to agriculture during the past eight years. Since 1931–32 there have been 36 or 37 Bills brought before this House to assist agriculture. Taking a bird's-eye view of the assistance given we find this: Rates are excused on agricultural land; that in itself represents a substantial figure, Then there are the Wheat Act, the subsidy on beet sugar, the beef subsidy, the subsidies for milk and fertilisers, and a dozen and one different things. Next there are tariffs and quotas and organised marketing and all that goes to make up the Government's agricultural policy. One of the weaknesses of that policy is that it has never been linked yet to wages. Out of that wages bill of £60,000,000 a year the State indirectly and directly finds at least £40,000,000 a year. Therefore, I think I am right in stating that in one shape or another the country pays about two-thirds of the existing wages bill.
When we come to look at the economic side, according to statistics that I have dug out the total produce sold in the United Kingdom last year was about £262,000,000. I mentioned a figure of £250,000,000 in the Standing Committee, but a man who should know and who is-engaged in agriculture tells me that the figure is £262,000,000. If we deduct the £60,000,000 paid in wages, there is £202,000,000 left. I am not able to state how much of that £202,000,000 goes to the landlord in the shape of rent, although I heard it estimated by one who should know that it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £47,000,000 to £50,000,000 a year. Nor can I say with certainty what is the actual cost of the raw material, seeds, fertilisers, and things


of that kind. But there is a very big gap between the wages bill and the price at which the produce is sold at the farm. I make this very definite assertion, that that produce is sold for far more than £262,000,000 when it is sold retail. I agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite on this point, that I believe the farmer has a perfect right to a good price for his produce, a price big enough to enable him to get a fair return on his capital and to pay a decent wage, and I am more than satisfied that if we had a Government big enough to attack the vested interests in distribution and to appoint a committee or commission with powers to investigate the difference between the price of the produce at the farm and the price at which it is sold in the shops, we could eliminate in costs of distribution more than would pay £2 a week to the farm worker and give the farmer a better price for his produce.
Therefore, I say that with the information we have, scanty though it be, there is sufficient in the industry to pay this figure of £2 a week. I know that there are profitable farms and farms that lose money. I read yesterday a statement made by a Norwich farmer. If it is true the industry is in a bad way. I read this in the "Daily Express." I have always been thankful for support wherever it comes from, and I am glad that Lord Beaverbrook and the "Daily Express" have advocated this £2 a week. At a meeting of the Norfolk National Farmers' Union this farmer said:
Never was there a time when Norfolk farmers were so badly hit as they are now. Rents are unpaid and the bank will not allow them any more credit. Never have so many farmers consulted me about their financial position, and when a farmer, one of the most conservative of men, does that, you know things are pretty desperate.
The only thing I can say is that if farming in Norfolk is as this gentleman described it, what a monument that is to the National Government. What a reflection upon all the legislation that has been passed. If that is all that Norfolk can show after eight years of National Government the sooner they turn out this Government and get another one in, the better for themselves and for the people generally.
The next argument will be that we shall be told that a better way to deal with the

wages question will be to leave it to the free flow of negotiation in the county agricultural committees. The agricultural worker is in an unfortunate position on those bodies. The Act was passed in 1924 which set up those bodies. I would re mind hon. Members opposite that previously we had a Conservative Government and Coalition Government for four years, and that they repealed the Corn Production Act. They ruined many occupier-owners and abolished the agricultural wages boards. When wages were left to the free flow of the conciliation committees we had Mr. Noel Buxton standing at that Box and saying that many agricultural workers in this country were working for less than £1 a week. That was before this country had a Labour Government. When hon. Members opposite talk about the real cause of the decline in agriculture and about Government interference, let them look at the record of pre-war, War and after-war experience. When the farmers were given the Corn Production Act they were told that four year's notice would be given before it was repealed. Nevertheless it was repealed, and many farmers got into the bankruptcy court. You threw the workers back again to where they were before the War. 
When the Act of 1924 was going through this House a combination of Conservatives and Liberals, including the present Foreign Secretary, united to take out the one safeguarding Clause that the Bill contains whereby the Minister could send back for reconsideration to county agricultural committees any award that he thought was insufficient. Under the Agricultural Wages Act, 1924, progress his been made to the extent that you have to-day an average wage of 34s. 9d. I submit that that is not enough. If agriculture is to prosper and if we are to keep our men on the land, we have to make the industry more attractive to the workers than it is to-day. We have had 50 years of so-called free education. There was a time when the old farm labourer never had a chance of going to school and when he was taught:
 God made them high and lowly,
He ordered their estate,
The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at the gate.
He was taught his job in the village. To-day he has a chance of equality in education. You have brains in the village school. Men occupy positions


to-day in engineering and science and all kinds of things, although they have come from villages. After half a century of free education you will not be able to get young men and women in the country side to put up with the things with which their fathers put up. Some hon. Members opposite who represent agricultural seats will be aware that many villages have bad sanitary arrangements, no running water and no social amenities and that there are bad cottages and no baths. All these things are driving the young iron out.
Whether this proposed new Clause be worded properly or not, it would at least enable this House to give an expression of its belief with regard to agriculture and the agricultural workers' wages. From the bottom of my heart I believe that if you wish to retain people on the land you must treat agricultural workers better than you are treating them now. You have to treat them more as equal to industrial workers. I sincerely hope that the House will be big enough to carry the proposed new Clause as an expression of opinion. Any anomalies can be removed by the Department. If the Clause is carried, it will show that we believe that the agricultural workers of this country are among the most important of all, and that they should have a wage of at least £2 a week.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. John Morgan: I beg to second the Motion.
I am privileged in being able to do so. It has been moved very forcefully by my hon. Friend, and I cannot help feeling that it is in line with a good deal of sympathy on all sides of this House as well as in the country. I can imagine that nothing would, commend the agricultural efforts which have been made by the Government in recent times to the con science and the pocket of the taxpayers and the people generally than if we were to do something at this stage for the farm worker. I believe that the output of agricultural legislation from this House is becoming distinctly distasteful to the urban electorate, who begin to want to see value for money. They begin to want 10 see some restitution to the countryside of healthy conditions, reflected through the men who work upon it in the villages and the farms generally
This afternoon we are thinking of the farm worker himself. Hon. Members know him as a worthy member of the community, as worthy as any, member of it. He is out in the hayfields possibly this afternoon, or thatching, or doing his hedges. These thunder showers are very local, and the men are snatching their hay in conditions like this. You can see that they are the very best types of men, and I believe that hon. Members of this House have it on their consciences that they have done nothing for them yet. It is possible that if the right hon. Gentle man had put forward this Clause hon. Members on the other side would be unanimous in its support and would be glad to be relieved of responsibility for the continuance of the present conditions; but because this proposal comes from this side of the House it may be condemned by people who know well in their hearts and consciences that the time has come when this ought to be done. 
The struggle of the farm labourer for a social status worthy of his job is epic. It goes right back to the days of the Tol-puddle martyrs who were transported for trying to combine to raise their wages. The agricultural workers have been at it ever since. They have had 6s., 8s., 10s. or a £1 per week, and at the moment their average wage is 34s. 9,d. Nothing makes my blood boil more than the periodical notices which are put up in rural parishes for jumble sales, because it is there that the farm worker's wife sees an opportunity of getting something in the way of clothes for herself and her family. It cannot be done out of 34s. 9d a week. A number of farm workers are still on the minimum wage. The Department has had to increase the inspectorate in recent times in order to see, by visiting farms, whether the farmers are even paying that mini mum wage, and there has been a substantial number of prosecutions following those visits. 
No person in this House can give us a sound argument why there should be any discrimination at all between the worker on the farm and the workers in brick laying, engineering or any equivalent occupation. There is no argument for such discrimination but it does exist in actual hard cash and it affects the present situation in more ways than in just the money that is taken home. Why can we not face the housing problem of the countryside? Because rural district


councils know that they cannot ask farm workers to pay more than 3s. a week because of the wages that they know the workers are getting. What about education? Any school mistress will tell you that the child who is holding up the educational standard of the village— not always, but often— and is marked out by his or her condition, is the farm worker's child, who is subnormal in physical condition and even in status. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rot."] It is not rot. You can talk to school teachers and they will tell you that there is a marked difference in physical condition, even between small holders children and those of farm workers. Time after time I have had this kind of case put to me. I can only suggest to hon. Members opposite that they make a few inquiries. 
Agricultural workers want to do a useful job, but we turn our backs upon the conditions of life in which they have to exist. The agricultural industry cannot afford to lose these men. We do not want to lose them, and in all sorts of indirect ways we are trying to retain them. We have authorised the Ministry of Health to give more subsidies for the building of farm houses. The farm labourer to day is allowed to be in an unemployment insurance scheme, but on a subsidiary basis, because his wages are known to be so low that you cannot give him his rights. You can give him only a maximum of 33s. a week, not because he is not entitled to more but because it would invalidate his position as a wage earner and disturb the wage position.
All this points to a great wrong done by this House in dealing with the position of a first-class citizen of this country. The Minister and others have pointed to the fact, which my hon. Friend has also been at some pains to point out, that this industry has received a considerable amount of assistance in tariffs, quotas and regulations, which are very effective. The import regulations are going to be the most effective part of the assistance to the sheep industry. Tariffs have definitely been a benefit in the horticultural industry. You have given £9,000,000 to wheat, £4,000,000 to cattle; to sugar beet, £3,000,000; to land fertility, £1,500,000; to bacon, £200,000; to oats and barley, £900,000; and now to land, £500,000. You are giving further subsidies to milk of £2,000,000. Oats, barley and sheep

may run to £6,500,000. Then there is derating. Another fact which should be taken into account is that the farmer is the most privileged member of the community in regard to Income Tax. No matter how much he earns, you take the gross value of his land and he pays on that. When he has losses, he can come in on the ordinary trader's basis and get away with it there. 
All through you have treated the farmer handsomely, and the Minister has made the case that all this incidentally benefits the farm worker. He says it gets through to him, and he tells us how much gets through to him. On what basis he has estimated it I do not know, because it has been extremely difficult, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, to get anything like a statistical background for treating the industry properly. But the Minister has told us that he estimates that the farm worker's wage in recent years has risen by 14 percent. That is the one substantial figure that we have had; presumably 14 percent, of the benefit from these monetary assistances has trickled through to the farm worker. But all the time that he was gaining that 14 per cent, he was running away from the land to the tune of 25 percent., and actually at this moment a smaller amount of wages is being paid per 100 acres of agricultural land than at any time since the Government started. Actually the farmer is paying less wages per 100 acres of land than he was paying seven years ago; or, in other words, there is less income for the farm workers as a body of men in the countryside to-day than there was before this assistance came along, The general body of farm workers has not benefited, and this explains the drift from the land.
It may be pointed out that this Clause is a clumsy one, that it is ineffective; but I think my hon. Friend has disposed of that argument, and at any rate the Clause gives the House a chance to make itself perfectly plain on this issue. As to the cost of bringing it into operation, it would only apply to regular workers, and to-day we are down to the point that we have only 380,000 of these regular workers. One of the dangers that con front the farm labourer to-day is that he is being casualised. A larger proportion of farm workers to-day are on a part-time basis. That is recognised by the fact that the farm worker is given special


privileges in regard to unemployment insurance; he has only to have 20 stamps, whereas workers in other industries have to have 30. That is another form of in dignity placed on the farm worker. Why is he singled out in this way? Are we not alive enough to his position to protect him in that regard? Twenty stamps entitle him to unemployment benefit be cause the industry is becoming casualised. There are only 380,000 regular workers, and the wage is 34s. 6d. or 34s. 9.d. That means that only about £500,000 a month, or roughly £6,000,000 a year would be required to make up the figure in the Clause.
I expect the Minister will reply, as he did on another occasion, that many of these men are getting more than the 34s. 9,d. taken as the basic county rate. If that be true, if they are getting another 2s. or 3s. a week, that only makes our proposal more feasible; it cannot cost more than £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 to do this job, and the Government are not being asked to do it, nor are the farmers, because according to our proposal It is only as they themselves decide to qualify for the subsidy that they undertake to pay this wage. In other words, they will, farmer-like, sit back and calculate whether it will pay them to apply for the oats, barley or sheep subsidy and pay this wage. If the £ s. d. is against it, they will not be required to pay the wage, but if it will pay them to draw the subsidy and pay the wage they can do so. That is quite a suitable initial approach to a problem like this.
The Minister may argue that it is not only that side of the question that matters, and that, if you once raise the minimum, you are going to shift the wage rates all round— that the cowman and the horse man will want a corresponding increase. I agree that that may happen, but not to the extent that is indicated by the improvement in the basic position. It is often forgotten, even by Members on this side of the House, that supported by this agricultural wage are the wages of county council employés, Post Office workers, railway workers, quarrymen and so on. A whole series of people are resting on the low agricultural wage, and it would be a strategic move in the interests of low-wage earners in other industries if this basic wage of 34s. 9d. were forced up. It would affect, I agree, the wage

position of a large number of other people, but that would not be borne by the farming industry; it would be an incidental benefit all round arising from this proposal. 
The Minister may say also that, if this Clause were adopted, it would lead to a lot of anomalies. But to what sort of anomalies will it lead that would be comparable with the anomalies that he is creating in his own Bill? This very Bill is going to give a subsidy to any oat grower, whatever his position, without a means test. There are scores and hundreds of farmers to-day who produce oats at 5s. a cwt, and yet the average price taken is 8s. We have in this Bill the anomaly that a man can take apiece of de-rated land, plough it under, and get £2 for doing it; he can then grow on it a crop that will give him a subsidy next spring, and he can feed that subsidised crop to a bullock that is subsidised, or he can get a milk subsidy; and he can get a subsidy for putting fertiliser on the land. That one acre can be subsidised half-a-dozen times without knowing whether the farmer needs the subsidy or not, and then it is said that a Clause like this will create anomalies. A whole series of proposals is being put before the House without any attempt to make conditions, without any means test, which are creating anomalies in every possible direction. I hope that the Minister will not argue that this proposal would be anomalous.
The Minister has precedents. A Bill has just been introduced offering assistance to the shipping industry provided that they clean up conditions in the holds and so on of their ships, and provided that they give the Government the right to take ships that they would otherwise sell to other people. Conditions have been laid down there. Why should we not require the farming industry, if it accepts cash assistance from this House, the Government and the State, to pay a reasonable wage that is not out of line with the wages paid to other classes of workers? Finally, I would like to point to the soundness of our proposal by quoting the Agricultural Correspondent of the "Times," who has a considerable number of supporters in this country, and whose information and advice are usually well founded. He says, in his article in yesterday's "Times":


 Given a sound basis of prices, which the Agricultural Development Bill, in conjunction with existing measures, promises to establish, the farmer who organises his labour force intelligently, taking advantage of tractors and other modern equiment, should be able to pay at least £2 a week to the fewer men "he employs. The farmer may say with truth that not every man is worth £2 a week, but it is generally recognised that the days of cheap labour on the land are past in this country.
By accepting this Clause, the Government would indicate to the whole country that in its opinion the days of cheap labour on the land are past for this country, and would hold out a hope to the men working on the land that they could stay there with some promise that we could use their skill sensibly and increase their standard of life on the countryside.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) made an eloquent speech, on which I should like to compliment him. Further, I found in his speech very little with which I personally disagree, and I believe it contained very little with which anybody on this side of the House would disagree. It was a calmly reasoned speech, and gave all the data that we require. My complaint is against the proposed new Clause itself. If the hon. Member were proposing a new Clause to provide for a subsidy to ensure the payment of a wage of 40s. a week, his speech would surely have achieved its purpose if the country could have afforded such a subsidy, but I am afraid that the Clause which is now before the House would have an effect which would be quite the reverse of the picture painted either by the hon. Member for Normanton or by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan). The Clause would, rightly or wrongly, make the present agricultural wages committees of no effect at all. I know that the Agricultural Wages Act passed by the Socialist Government of 1924 has its faults, but a great deal of good work has been done under it since that time, although there have been great difficulties; and at one fell swoop to smash the Act and introduce in its place a "chancy" method of assuring to some agricultural labourers a wage of 40s. a week, while others would be left with no remedy at all, is not, I believe, the right way of approaching this very difficult problem.
In Committee the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) gave the figures for wages in 1926 and to-day, and I think it will be of value to the House to have those figures before deciding. In 1926, the average wage paid was 31s. 8d., and the hon. Member gave the figure for the present year as 35s. 3d. I do not know that we need bother about the difference of 6d. between this figure and the figure given by the hon. Member for Normanton, but, according to these figures, the wages have increased by 3s. 7d. a week. The hon. Members opposite have always, so far, compared that increase with the subsidies paid by the Treasury, but, with great respect to them, that is not the true comparison. The true comparison, surely, is between the average prices of agricultural produce in 1926 and to-day, and, taking those prices, I find that, regarding the price in 1926 as 100, to-day the price is 91. In other words, prices have dropped to the extent of 9 percent, in the intervening years, while wages have risen by 3s. 7d. a week. I think the House should realise that the agricultural wages committees, great though their difficulties have been, have achieved that result. Although prices have been drop ping since 1926— the drop has now been checked by the present Government's agricultural policy— the average rate of wages has risen by 3s. 7d. a week, and it has been rising continual during the whole time.

Mr. T. Williams: Would the hon. Member be good enough to complete the picture, for the benefit of all Members of the House, by giving the figures for the increase of output per person since the year 1926?

Mr. Turton: I do not think I need those figures; the hon. Member can give them if he wishes.

Mr. Williams: As the hon. Member has quoted figures that I gave in the Committee, I would point out that I also gave the other figure, which shows an increase of 30 percent. Will the hon. Member also include that figure, so as to give the House the whole picture?

Mr. Poole: It is in column 247, about 10 lines from the bottom.

Mr. Turton: I believe that the right comparison is between the average price of the produce and the average wage. If


the hon. Member has some criticism to make of my way of doing it, I hope that, when he addresses the House later, he will make that criticism, but my view that it is right to base our approach to the problem on prices and not, as has been done by the two previous speakers, on the amount of the subsidy, because that gives a very wrong picture of what is happening. I want the House clearly to see what would happen if we were to pass this rich man's charter, this rich man's subsidy Clause proposed by the hon. Member for Normanton. It would mean that the rich farmer— the gentleman farmer— would be able to pay this wage of 40s. a week, but the man who would be hit would be the small man, who to-day is struggling against adversity and who has not the large amount of subsidy that is gained by the richer man. 
That is the first great anomaly. [Interruption.] I could not catch what the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) said, but he is a Welshman. He knows that the small upland farmers have had a terribly hard time. It would be far more difficult for them than for a man who has a large prize dairy herd, and has been making better prices in the last few years. The man with a large dairy herd would not be affected by this Clause. The man who has been doing better than the small upland farmer would not be touched. The man who is well off would not be invited to pay 40s. a week. Only the small upland oat grower in the hills of Scotland and some of the hills of England would be invited to do so. That is not the correct way of attacking this very difficult problem. 
As the Clause is now drawn, all family farms would be drawing the subsidy, and having no wage bill at all. In some cases, I know, the farmers' sons get an allowance of 10s. a week. It is surely not fair to bring forward a Clause which would enable family farms to receive a subsidy, when they have no addition to their costs of production, while those who employ labour have to raise wages by an average of 4s. 9.d. a week. [An Hon. Member: "That would be helping the small man."] I do not know about that. There are some people who, through no fault of their own, have no family to work the farm. I know one farmer with seven sons. He is in a fortunate position. There are others who have no children, and have to get hired labour.
The effect of this Clause would be to casualise farm labour even more than now, because the man who is employing casual labour would not be hit by the Clause. That would be a development which I believe every Member would deplore. A further difficulty is that when you have a minimum wage fixed that always tends to become the maximum. This 40s. a week would be laid down in an Act of Parliament as the right wage for any agricultural worker.

Mr. Poole: Can the hon. Member tell us of a single industry in this country where an established minimum wage has become a maximum wage?

Mr. Turton: It has certainly tended to do that, in some parts of the country, in agriculture. It is known to be a fact. In my own area wages have continued to rise. They are already about 40s. a week. It would be unfortunate for the agricultural workers if their wages were stabilised at 40s. a week when they are already on that level, and hoping to receive more. We have to encourage men to stay on the land. I do not believe this new Clause will do that. I do not believe that we shall keep a man in agriculture by telling him, "We are going to give you the princely sum of 40s. a week, whereas by working on the roads you can get 41s. or 42s." Under this Act, when prices improve wages will improve. You can keep people in agriculture if you improve the conditions of the country side— and that is what we shall have to do in the near future. It is true that the Government have given rural water supplies in many parts of the country, but, although 8,000 parishes have piped supplies, 3,000 have not that advantage.
The hon. Member for Normanton talked about housing. Under last year's Act, houses are to be built, and the rent charged is not to be more than 3s. 6d. a week for a three-roomed house. That is the right way to encourage agricultural labour. The hon. Member for Normanton talked about rents of 5s. 6d. a week, but, fortunately, that is not the position in many parts of the country, owing to the limitation of rents under the Act. Lastly, we have to tackle the question of sanitation in the rural areas. I entirely disagree with the hon. Member for Don-caster, who talked about agricultural workers' children being slow on the uptake.

Mr. J. Morgan: I did not say that they were slow on the uptake. I said that they were in poor physical condition and not so nicely dressed.

Mr. Turton: I heard the hon. Member say they were in bad mental and physical condition. That will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT, unless it is corrected in the meantime.

Mr. Morgan: I am new to the House, Mr. Speaker, and, therefore, do not know how legitimate this kind of statement is. I said nothing of the kind, and to suggest that I am going up to correct the report of my speech does not seem to be in line with the traditions of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I am not in a position to recollect what was said in the House, but certainly it is not the custom for hon. Members to change their speeches in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Turton: I withdraw any suggestion that the hon. Member would maliciously alter anything he has said. But if there has been a slip or a mishearing it has always been the practice to change the report. I think all Members do go and see their speeches. [Hon. Members: "No! "] The agricultural workers' children and the agricultural workers are certainly as intelligent as anybody in the countryside, and, in my view, they are as strong physically. For that reason, when they grow up they tend to shift from the countryside when they find they have not got the amenities that are to be found in the towns and that men and women in other industries get higher wages. The right way of curing this is to see that agricultural prices and wages are improved.

Mr. MacLaren: And lower rents.

Mr. Turton: I quite agree with the hon. Member; and when we get such Measures as that passed by the present Government, to limit rents for agricultural labourers to a maximum of 3s. 6d. a week, we shall help to keep agricultural workers on the land. I am sure that the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) is not very satisfied with the Addison Housing Act, and will give credit to the present Government for having got agricultural workers cottages at reasonable rents. I am glad to have his support in

the matter. I hope the House will not consider seriously a new Clause which has so many anomalies. While we are in sympathy with the ideas put so eloquently into shape by the hon. Member for Normanton, we should avoid doing something which will help one agricultural worker and hamper another, by saying, for all time, that we are satisfied with a wage of 40s. a week for agricultural workers.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I shall vote for this Bill, because it seems to me to do something for the fanner and farm worker, although it does more for the middleman. I shall vote for the proposed new Clause, because it seems to me that in agriculture you must work from the soil upwards. Agricultural workers are as necessary to us as soldiers. Thanks to the development of machinery, we are passing through the second phase of the Industrial Revolution— a phase affecting the farm instead of the factory. It is as essential to see that farm workers are decently fed and housed as that soldiers are properly looked after. If the farmers cannot afford to pay a minimum of 40s. a week to farm workers— and some, through no fault of their own, cannot do so— the State should intervene to pay the labourers' wages. The community cannot prosper while there is the present discrepancy between agricultural prices and costs. The discrepancy becomes in creasingly serious as mechanisation in creases the farmers' need of ready money. Duties on imported foodstuffs and subsidies have not solved that problem, and I do not believe that they ever will. The subsidy of £2 per acre for ploughing-up will not solve that problem, because it is becoming a problem of scarcity of labour. Even cheap credit will not help. I believe that the German State is trying to help agriculture by cheap credit, through the banks, and the result is that, after some years, nearly all the land is owned by the banks. I think we would rather have State ownership than bank ownership.
Every adult agricultural worker should receive a wage of not less than 40s., and if the farmer cannot afford it it Mould be better that the State should intervene to pay labourers' wages, rather than pay a subsidy, which would create artificial shortage of food. In such circumstances, the duties on imported food might be


cancelled, and credit would be cheaper, because the risk of investment in the farming industry would be small. It is essential to restore prosperity to agriculture. We cannot do so unless we give prosperity to the agricultural worker. Even if there is no war, we shall find more countries from which we formerly got agricultural supplies advancing under German domination, and more countries from which we got supplies having their land ruined by soil erosion, and so on. It is becoming more essential, in peace and in war, that we should develop our own agriculture. I think very valuable work is being done at present in regard to increasing the fertility of the soil, but there is a great deal still to be done to help those who till the soil. For that reason I shall support the Clause.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. R. Morgan: In the Committee stage of this Bill I supported the proposal now put forward in this proposed new Clause, and I have listened in vain for any statement to-day that would cause me to alter my attitude. Since I have been in this House there have always been two things that persistently rattled my conscience. One was the inadequacy of the farm labourers' pay and the other the inadequacy of old age pensions. As I see it, this Clause, stripped of all the verbiage and heat which the proposer and seconder put into it, can be reduced to a cold statement of fact. Are we, as Members of the House, going to say that the farm labourer is not worthy of his hire? Are we going to say very definitely that a wage of 40s. a week is not too much as. a minimum? I have listened very care fully to the explanation of the anomalies that may arise. They do not affect me much. In fact, I was rather surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said that had it been a greater Measure— embracing the whole of the farm labourers— he could have supported it. I can only quote the Scripture and say:
 If the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather, then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? 
The acid test, as I see it, is this. Is there any Member of the House who would willingly go to his constituency and address a meeting of rural or town workers and say, "I voted against a farm labourer having a mini-

mum wage of £2 a week"? I said in Committee that if my hon. and militant Friend who so appropriately represents the peaceful and lovely Vale of Evesham did not believe in this clause, but I know in his heart he does, he should go to the harvest festival at Evesham parish church and ask the vicar if he might not address the congregation and take for his text, "The labourer is worthy of his hire," and then he can go on right through the whole of the ramifications of what he has said in the House from time to time on their behalf. He might finish up by saying that some of his hon. Friends in London had told him that they were worth 40s. a weekbut they could not have it, and then end up in his best Parliamentary style by saying," Was not the whole thing very unsatisfactory? My hon. Friend draws my attention to the fact that this only applies to a Section of farm labourers. Supposing it only does that, it sets a splendid example. Will it not be possible to make the labourers on other farms and the farmers themselves see that the subsidised farms recognise that 40s. a week should be the absolute minimum? As far as I can judge they are getting only 9,d. an hour at present. This example will be copied, and eventually the whole of the farm labourers will realise that 40s. per week is to be the least that is offered.

Mr. McKie: Has the hon. Member no confidence in the Wages Board?

Mr. Morgan: I have every confidence in the Wages Board. I have confidence in the Bill, and I think it will do a great deal of good, but I should have liked the Minister to have said some thing about the Wages Board. If he had said in Committee that he would send a recommendation on the lines of this Clause to the Wages Board, I should have been quite satisfied. I am not concerned with what this is going to cost, but, whatever it costs, the extra money will circulate in the shops. I should be very glad to vote the £5,000,000 if only to ease the conscience of myself and many others. I hope the Minister will find a way out of that very difficult and disagreeable task of being forced to vote against my own party.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I want to approach the question, not so much from the point


of view of the worker only, but from the point of view of the nation. I agree with everything that has been said on behalf of the workers, but I believe that, unless the agricultural industry as a whole gives the agricultural worker a wage of at least this amount, the problems that are going to arise for the industry, and for the nation as a whole, very shortly are going to be even more serious than those that face the industry to-day. It is, therefore, not merely on humanitarian grounds that I appeal, but on the wider basis that an industry which pays a wage of some 34s. or so is fundamentally unsound. It is, in my opinion, one of the real tests of the failure of the Government's agricultural policy since 1931 that agricultural wages have not risen to a figure which gives a decent standard of living. Some of us hoped that the Minister, when he took over, would really tackle this whole problem and treat it in a broad way. I ask him whether he can be satisfied with this Bill if, when we apply the test whether it would be possible to pay a decent wage, he has to tell us that it will do no such thing, because that is what the position is to-day. We have listened to a speech from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), which did not strike any very clear note. While he agreed with this, the reasons why he voted against it in Committee were not set out very clearly for me to understand. We have also listened to one speech from the Government advocating the Bill. The fact of the matter is that we have this Bill, coming on top of all the other agricultural legislation, and we are still told, that even with the £5,000,000 that it gives to the industry— it may very well cost the taxpayer another £5,000,000— but even with that it is not possible to stop the drift from the land.
What amount of State assistance, given in the form of subsidies to the farmer, and to some extent passed on to the landowner or the middleman, do the Government think it necessary to give before a minimum wage of this figure is paid? Let us know. We say we want the agricultural worker to have such an economic standard that the industry will not be on a sound footing till it gets it, and there are plenty of farmers who will agree with that statement, because they know the difficulty of obtaining labour, and if the workers are not paid a reason-

able wage there will not be any agricultural workers left in a few years. There are many advocates of a direct subsidy to wages. We have had it pointed out that the subsidies paid to agriculture amount to a very large proportion of the total agricultural wages. I do not believe that the administrative difficulties about paying a subsidy as an addition to the wage that we shall be told from the Government Bench is all that the fanner can afford to pay, are insuperable. I know I shall be told about the experience of the last century, but to-day, with the regulation of wages, it would not be impossible to pay such a subsidy. However, I do not want to press, the point if there are objections to it, but I hope the Minister, before we break up, before perhaps we have to face the electors, will give us some sort of indication of how the Government think their policy will ever lead to the payment of a minimum wage of this sort.
I do not under-estimate the difficulties of farmers. We have had some controversy earlier about the increased cost of wages and the increased output. Some rather interesting figures in a paper by Mr. Murray, of Oxford University, throw a light on the problem. They show that there has been an increased cost in wages during the last few years, at a time when, in spite of the Government's legislation, and more particularly in spite of their promises to the agricultural community, the wholesale prices— not to any extent retail prices— of food have been falling. I recognise that, and I can put it very exactly by quoting these figures given by Mr. Murray. In 1914 it took 26.2 1b. of sheep to pay for 52 hours' wages. In 1938 it took, not 26, but 46.2 1b. of sheep to pay for 52 hours' wages. In 1924 it took 24 gallons of milk to pay for 52 hours' wages. In 1937 it took 38.9 gallons. The productivity of labour has increased enormously; the figures are striking. I believe that, in spite of the drift from the land which has accounted for something like 250,000 workers since the War, it would have taken 6 Percent, more labour to produce the present output if the productivity of labour had not increased to the extent that the hon. Member pointed out. 
I mention these figures in order to draw one conclusion. The farmer has been raising wages by the one means available


to him in the past— by increasing the out put per man or by increasing the output per £100 of wages paid. The output per man has been going up, but is this Bill going to assist the farmer in the only sane way? I say that it is not. It is giving him subsidies on what he is growing, and a minimum price, but it is not going to help him to reorganise the business of British agriculture on any really sound basis. This is just a temporary Measure. An hon. Friend of mine put down an Amendment to alter the name of this Bill. It is called the Agricultural Development Bill, but there is no development in it whatever. It is merely a Bin for temporary assistance; it does not give the farmer permanent assistance in reorganising his industry or the marketing of his produce.

Mr. R. Morgan: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in introducing the general question of marketing on this Bill or should he not confine him self to the new Clause before the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): The hon. Member is entitled to put his case in his own way.

Mr. Roberts: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the liberty you have given me, and to the hon. Member for giving me a pause in which to collect my thoughts. I do not see that, either directly or indirectly, this Bill holds out any hope whatever to the farm worker that his position will be substantially improved. It does not provide for any development of the industry. I had an example thrust upon me of the serious position of the agricultural industry of this country only yesterday. I came back from France, and looking out upon the cultivated land of Northern France, I saw large and care fully cultivated crops, without an inch of waste land to be seen. I noticed the marked difference when I arrived in England, and saw the ill-cultivated land, with grass fields carrying no livestock, except rabbits. One sees crops being destroyed by vermin, and there is no opportunity given under this Bill to prevent that sort of thing from occurring. One realises that the agricultural industry in this country is in a difficult position and that the agricultural worker's position is also a bad one.
I want to consider the wage of 40s. which is proposed, and to ask whether it

is on a reasonable basis? I would draw the attention of the House to the estimate which Mr. Rowntree made of the minimum needs of the workers. He fixed the minimum wage which would meet the bare necessities of a man, wife and three children living in the town at 53s. and for the agricultural worker he reduced the figure to 41s. The way in which he arrived at that reduction throws light on the present position of the agricultural worker. Mr. Rowntree thinks that the cost of food for a man, wife and three children can be reduced from 20s. 6d. in the town to 18s. 6d. in the country. I doubt whether meat out of the butcher's van or groceries out of the grocer's van delivered at the door of the householder can be supplied much more cheaply in the country than in the town. Mr. Rowntree reduces the rent from 9s. 6d. to 5s. 6d. Houses in the country may be cheaper, but they are also in a worse condition, and if there is no water, gas or electricity laid on it means harder work for the agricultural worker's wife.
He reduces the cost of clothing from 8s. to 7s. for the five persons. It may be that the agricultural worker and his wife do not need to be as smart as the town worker and his wife, but I should have thought that the agricultural worker and his family would need better clothing than is required by persons living in the town because of the bad weather that they have to face in the country. He reduces the amount for fuel and light from 4s. 4d. to 3s. 2d., and again I do not know that the coal which is carted to the agricultural worker's door is cheaper than the coal which the town dweller buys. It may be that the country dweller can obtain a little wood sometimes, but usually the grates in his house are old-fashioned and very wasteful, while the house may be rather damp and require more heat.
The main reduction is in personal expenses, from 9s. to 5s. 6d., as Mr. Rowntree considers that the agricultural worker requires less entertainment. I do not know whether he requires it, but he certainly gets less, and that is one of the reasons why many young people prefer to work in the town. He also notes that the agricultural workers' insurance contributions are lower, but, I would add, and so are the benefits. He also points out that fewer agricultural workers belong


to trade unions. That is the fact, and in my opinion, it is so much the worse for the agricultural workers. He also notices that the allowances that agricultural workers make for holidays are smaller than those of the workers in the towns, and that is because they seldom get holidays. The reduction from 53s. to 41s. is chiefly brought about by cutting down the amenities of life, and, therefore, that assumes that the agricultural worker, has an altogether harder life and fewer opportunities for leisure than the town worker. 
I could not be satisfied with an agricultural policy which permanently condemned the agricultural worker to such a position. I believe that by better marketing, and better organisation on the part of farmers themselves, as a correspondent of the "Times" has already pointed out, a wage of 40s. can be paid, but I fail to see that this Bill does any thing of a fundamental nature which will assist in bringing about that improvement in the position of the agricultural workers without which we shall not be satisfied on these benches.

5.25 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): It may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this moment. It is only right that the House should get a very clear idea of exactly what issue is at stake in considering this new Clause. The issue is not whether it is desirable that the efficient agricultural worker should be able to earn a minimum average weekly wage of £2. If that were the issue there would not be a voice raised against this Clause. I think I can go further and say with confidence that the House would unanimously express the wish that farm workers should enjoy conditions no whit less favourable than similar workers in other industries, not only as far as wages are concerned, but also as far as the other conditions are concerned, and as far as you can economically adapt the agricultural worker to conditions which prevail in other industries. As was pointed out, the Whitehall cow has not yet been produced. I mean the cow which will stop on Sundays and so on. You have to allow for the different conditions which exist within the agricultural industry.
The desire and intention of the Government are to reach the position where in fact you get the agricultural worker into a similar position to that of town workers. It is our desire, and I think it is shown by this Bill that it is also our intention, that the industry should be able to meet all the legitimate needs of all those who are employed in it, including the farmers themselves. I am certain that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) will agree with me that there are many farmers and smallholders who themselves are not getting 40s. a week year in year out, and nothing like it. Therefore, we have to try to get the whole industry into a proper state of prosperity. It is clear that you cannot hope to maintain a better and a more proper balance between town and country unless you have a contented body of workers on the land. Upon that we are entirely agreed, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Normanton for having raised this whole question. I know that this Debate will get full publicity, and I hope it will give a little confidence to those people who have not been too friendly disposed to agriculture in the past.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Where are they?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: There are many outside, but to me it is absolutely deplorable and quite dangerous 1hat there should be such a gap between the real earnings of the primary producer, be he farm worker, mine worker, or fisherman, and those who are engaged in tie secondary industries, and those who are engaged in distribution. Therefore, I hope that because we have to resist this particular Clause, it will not go out that the Government are in fact unmindful of the needs and aspirations of farm workers. I believe that in this Bill we are doing things which are absolutely vital to welfare of the farmer, but it is my duty to advise the House whether this Clause would be workable and whether, in fact, it would really do what is in the mind of the hon. Member for Normanton. If it were the desire of the hon. Member to ensure that by legislation there should be a minimum weekly wage of £2 all the year round, this new Clause simply would not do that. I think that is recognised by all hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) made it perfectly dear that


this new Clause could not and would not mean that the agricultural workers would in fact get £2 a week. What does the proposal mean? It invites the House to say that unless all the adult workers, presumably including those aged and in-firmed workers who at the present time can have a less wage than the minimum fixed by the wage committees, are in receipt of £2 a week during the time at which the subsidy can be paid, then no deficiency payments will be made. Will be made on what? On all the crops which may receive Government help? No, not on those crops but really on two and one-third of the crops, that is, on sheep, oats and about one-third of barley. The wheat grower, the fat cattle man, the milk producer, who may not be interested in either sheep, barley or oats, the sugar-beet man, the pig man would not have to pay any wage above that laid down by the county agricultural wages committee, which might well be less than 40s. a week. That is rather an absurd position and certainly not a position in which the House would like those who happen to be oat growers or sheep producers to be in. 
I have tried all the way through this Bill to show that the Government are not attempting to guarantee a profit to the farmers on the three commodities with which the Bill deals. We are trying only to guarantee them against a loss which if continued would cripple their under takings. That is a very different thing from trying to guarantee a profit. There fore, we arrive at this position, that at the moment when prices have fallen to a point where it would be necessary to pay a subsidy to prevent a serious loss, the producer of these commodities would have to pay more wages, and when the price levels rise to an economic figure, then he would be able to pay less wages. Surely, that is not a position in which we want to get. I believe that if this new Clause were passed there would be many farmers who would have to make up their minds whether it would pay them at all to take the subsidy, or whether it would pay them under existing conditions to pay the statutory rate of wages. It is not very difficult to work out the position where the farmer might have to pay round about £30 a year in wages in order to get £15 a year of oats subsidy. Therefore, I want to impress upon the House that it cannot be said that this new Clause seeks to give

the agricultural workers £2 a week mini mum wage all the year round.
We do desire that the agricultural worker shall obtain a full share of any benefit which may accrue from the legislation which goes through this House. That is the desire, as I have reason to know, of the vast majority of the farmers of this country, because they realise that they cannot run their farms properly unless they have good and efficient workers. My submission is that there is already in existence machinery which is capable of seeing that any benefits are passed on, and that the worker does get his fair share of those benefits, and that is the machinery of the county wages committees. Those committees are composed of farmers, of workers and of independent members, and they are peculiarly well fitted to go into the whole question as to what any part of the country can afford to pay to the workers and also the question whether the workers are getting their fair share of any benefit. 
When all is said and done, it is really not so much what we in this House may hope will happen as a result of legislation as what actually does happen on the land, and how the Measures which we pass affect the men on the land. Who is better able to judge of that than these county committees, which have local knowledge of local conditions. I have not heard one suggestion during the Debates on this Bill that the county wages committees are failing in their duties towards the agricultural workers. Indeed, facts have been adduced to-day to show that they are fully aware of their duties towards the agricultural workers in all districts. One could show, but I do not think it is necessary, because it is well known, that while prices have been falling the agricultural wages committees have been enabled not only to maintain but to in crease wages. Whether that does take into account sufficiently the actual in crease in output due to mechanisation and so on, is a question for argument, but the fact remains that the wages of the agricultural workers have not suffered the same loss in purchasing power as the income of the farmers during recent years. 
If we tried to impose upon agriculture a rate of wages beyond its capacity to pay, we should be doing a great disservice not only to agriculture but also to the workers themselves, because the


net result could only be that the farmers would have to dispense with some of their workers and cut down a position which is already very dangerous, because they are dangerously short of their labour force. If, on the other hand, as we hope through the Measures which have been adopted, the industry can be made more prosperous, then a fair share of the benefits must come to the workers. I hope the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) will realise that it is not only the measures in this Bill which represent the way the Government are trying to raise the wage-paying capacity of the industry. There are many other measures in operation at the same time. It is perfectly true that one can never get a broad view of agricultural policy, because we are always dealing with it in certain water-tight compartments, and it is easy to forget what is happening in other directions. 
We are now— and this Bill is another step towards it— trying to deal faithfully with the question of the proper regulation of imports. We are trying to put a bottom in the market by the price insurance scheme. We are trying to check the sort of slump which came last year in regard to sheep and barley. The hon. Member for North Cumberland knows well what happened in his part of the world when that slump came in sheep. We are trying to check that at a certain level, and we are also trying by the regulation of imports to prevent prices from going even to the price insurance level. We have in this Bill a barley scheme in which for the first time we find the brewers co operating with us in ensuring that a fair price will be paid for malting barley. We have running through this policy various efficiency measures. I know that there is criticism that these measures come along slowly, but probably no- other party which might come into power would be able to get on with these efficiency measures any more quickly. We have the question of the abattoirs, which is now in the last stage of negotiation. [Interruption.] Well, it is not a Government concern; it is an independent body which has been dealing with the matter, but I imagine that they have been dealing with it as efficiently as business men can, and probably more efficiently than most Governments would do. We have

also the question of the organisation of markets, and other measures.
It is to be hoped that these various measures in their cumulative effect will have the full results desired. This Bill represents the final instalment is far as the production side is concerned. We can say now that all the staple farm commodities have machinery which will enable protection to be given. The three matters with which we are dealing in the Bill, oats, barley and sheep, were three commodities which were left either unprotected or insufficiently protected. Now, we have got a broad comprehensive policy as far as production itself is concerned. I am, however, prepared to admit that there is still a lot to be done in regard to marketing and so on, but so far as production is concerned we have completed the circle of machinery for staple commodities. Although it is very difficult to give any exact figures or an exact fore cast of what may happen, there is reason to hope that in a short time we shall see the benefits and feel the benefits of the measures we have taken, and I think the House can be assured that if those benefits accrue, as we hope they will, they will very soon be reflected in the work of the wages committees and in the recommendations they make.
I would ask the hon. Member opposite who is to follow me whether lit has any complaint to make against the work of the wages committees. Will he not agree that they have worked expeditiously and well? He said in the Committee up stairs that this Amendment would create difficulties and anomalies in working, and the hon. Member for Doncaster has admitted to-day that it would not mean that the agricultural workers would. get an average minimum wage £2 a week. It would not even mean that one agricultural worker would have £3 get a rise in wages to £2 a week. I think that will be admitted. If the hon. Member for Normanton does want an expression of opinion from the House as to whether the farm workers are worth £2 a week, or whether they are worth wages equivalent to those given in urban industry, I say, yes, and the whole House will agree with him. If he wants that expression of opinion, we shall a .1 entirely agree with him, but it surely has to be conceded that before you ask an industry to pay a certain wage, you must be


absolutely certain that it can afford to pay that rate of wages. It may be that in France the fields are well cultivated and well tilled compared with those in this country and that wages are high, but I wonder whether this country would stand the high cost of living. 
The battle which many of us have been fighting has been a battle to bring home the position to our urban friends and to get them to realise that if we are to maintain a fair wage for our rural workers the urban consumers must be ready and willing to pay a fair price for the agricultural produce they consume. We are trying for the first time to do that by the regulation of imports, which urban Members thoroughly under stand, because if it happens to their particular industry they know exactly what it means, and I have every hope that our efforts will be successful. But let nobody think that the new Clause would, in fact, tend towards giving a £2 minimum wage per week to agricultural labourers. I hope that by a joint co-operative movement we shall make it possible to get and maintain a fair wage for agricultural labourers.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I am sure that we shall all be delighted to know that this is the last Agricultural Bill giving subsidies. At long last we have completed the circle. It is perfectly true that watercress has not yet been dealt with, but there is still hope. The right hon. Gentleman has been very sincere and very determined in his efforts to persuade the House that this proposal does not mean anything, and certainly that it does not mean a £2 per week minimum wage for an agricultural labourer. He made the same statement in Committee, and I also want to repeat some of the statements I made in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he actually agrees with the purpose of the new Clause, and that he would never be content with the gross in equality there is between urban and rural workers. The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite do not deny the skill of the agricultural worker; they respect him, but they say, this is not the right Clause to put in this particular Bill, and the Bill is not the right Bill for this particular Clause. They proceed to demolish the new Clause and to bring in anomalies and administrative difficulties

while proclaiming their sympathy for the agricultural labourer. 
I have listened to so many similar Debates in this House and have heard the same excuses on so many occasions that I regretfully say that I am beginning to doubt the sincerity of some of the observations made by hon. Members about agricultural labourers. What I cannot rid myself of is this. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) truly said that since 1931 some 38 agricultural Measures have been brought before this House. We have provided direct or indirect subsidies for almost every commodity in agriculture, and on every occasion when we have pleaded the case of the agricultural labourer the same excuses have been made as have been submitted by the right hon. Gentleman to-day. We must act if we are to save agriculture, but we must never act in the interests of the agricultural labourer. Either it is administratively difficult or it is an anomaly, or some other excuse; there is always some excuse why we should not do the thing now. 
I confess that the terms of the Bill make it well nigh impossible for us to submit the sort of Clause which we would desire, and we recognise that we are arguing not on the actual words on the Order Paper but on the principle embodied in the new Clause. If the House took a decision on the principle of a £2 per week minimum, I am sure that ways and means would be found to deal with it administratively, however complicated the problem might be. In connection with the problem of livestock or slaughtering, or any other problem connected with agriculture, the Government have always been able to find a committee or a com mission and pay them salaries large enough to administer the highly complex problem. The Wheat Commission costs the bread consumer £600,000 a year to ad minister the wheat scheme. Everybody knows it is a highly complicated piece of machinery and that it is extremely difficult to administer, but we do not com plain about the cost of administration. We have never uttered a word of criticism about this £600,000 per annum in administration. If the will of the House is there, the way can be found.
Then there are existing anomalies. We pay the same 7s. 6d. per cwt. for fat beef whether it is Produced on heavy land


or on light sandy soil; we pay the same subsidy for milk whether it costs 7d. per gallon or is. 4d. per gallon, and we pay the same subsidy for oats whether the farmer produces 11cwts.per acre or 20cwts. per acre. The Minister for Agriculture never seems to have regard to the anomalies which are created by these subsidies. We know that the anomalies are there, and that the provision of a subsidy will make it possible for one farmer just to come in and for another farmer to make a jolly good thing at the expense of the Treasury. These anomalies are there already, and why we should not face this most gross of all anomalies in the country I do not know. The agricultural labourer who can make a hedge, build a hayrick, who knows all about livestock and the handling of agricultural machinery, is really a skilled expert, and yet he has always been below the level of other workers. Think of the man who has to tend the cattle and frequently sit up with them all night. He is lucky to get 35s. a week, and he works seven days a week. But the man who hawks milk on the streets may get £3 and £4 a week. Think of the man who tends the fat cattle who gets 35s. to 45s. a week. But the butcher— would anybody offer him35s. a week? Think in terms of the man who sows the wheat and reaps the harvest. Would anybody consider paying the miller 35s. a week?
Why is it that the man who handles the agricultural commodities which the agricultural labourer produces should get two and three times as much as the agricultural labourer? Nothing that the Minister has said to-day has answered that question. He is sympathetic towards agricultural labourers, and I know that many hon. Members opposite are sympathetic. Why is it that they do not help us to establish a minimum wage which would keep the best men we have on the land? The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) always speaks on these questions with great intelligence and in a far-seeing way, but owing to his legal mind he misses the point which really matters. To-day he has referred to what I said in Committee. I said that in 1926 the wages of the agricultural labourer was 31s. 8d.per week and in 1939, 35s. 3d. and that, therefore, the increase had been 3s. yd. per week. Notwithstanding all the Bills and all the subsidies, direct and indirect,

all the restrictions on imports and output, the rate of progress of the agricultural labourer for the last 13 years has been 3¼d. per annum.
But, says the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, the hon. Member has not observed that there has been a change in the price level between 1926 and 1939; has he not noticed that if in 1926 100 was the price level, then it is now only 91? Of course I have observed that change, but I also observe that during the same period the output per person engaged in agriculture has increased by 30 per cent, and, therefore, on the hon. Member's own balance sheet, with the 30 percent, increase in output per person and with the 1939 price level, the farmer is receiving from the agricultural labourer £117 worth of products instead of £100, and as the wage of the agricultural labourer has increased by about n per cent, the agricultural labourer in 1939 is worse off than he was in 1926,

Mr. Turton: If the hon. Member is drawing a picture without taking into account other costs of production he is giving an entirely fictitious balance sheet.

Mr. Williams: If the hen. Member has further points to raise why has he not raised them before? He gave us two sets of figures, plus prices, ignoring altogether the increased productivity of the agricultural labourer, and now he is going to tell us that the industrialists are exploiting the farmers by making them pay more for their machines.

Mr. Turton: The answer is that I cannot see how the hon. Member relates the 30 percent, into his figures without taking into account the other costs of production, not only in the case of machines, but in manures as well.

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member pursues my figures to their logical conclusion, even including the cost of machines, it does not vitiate the figure I gave, and it still leaves the agricultural labourer in a worse position than he was in 1926 despite all the subsidies. I quoted these figures in Committee and as the hon. Member did not reply to them then I was encouraged in the belief that there was no reply. I am credibly in formed that a farmer with 500 acres, reasonably well fanned, with the wheat subsidy, the fat cattle subsidy, the milk


subsidy, the bacon subsidy, and all the other subsidies which are obtainable, can collect £2,000 per annum in subsidies.

Mr. Snadden: Where is that farm? I think the hon. Member is making a very misleading statement.

Mr. Williams: It may be in Scotland, it may be in England. It may be in Thirsk and Malton or it may be in Perth and Kinross. I said that on a mixed farm of 500 acres, reasonably well farmed and having the appropriate wheat acre age, fat cattle production and so forth, the farmer could collect approximately £2,000 a year in subsidies. I went on to say that if such a farmer employed three men per 100 acres, making 15 men altogether, and increased their wages from 35s. to 40s. a week, he would be called upon to pay them an extra sum of £195 a year. Surely, if the Treasury, by one scheme and another, provides that farmer with £2,000 a year, he ought to be ready and willing to give an extra £195 a year to the 15 agricultural labourers who produce the goods. 
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture did not attempt to argue that the agricultural labourer is not worth 40s. a week. He did not even argue very determinedly that the farmers cannot afford to pay 40s. a week. What he argued was that the Clause is not the right kind of Clause by which to provide the 40s. a week throughout the year. His second point was that the county wages committees are doing their job effectively. I have never declared that the county wages committees are not doing their job fairly well, but surely, the right hon. Gentleman knows that there are counties where the agricultural labourers are scarcely organised at all and where their representation on the county committees has been of the most modest kind; whereas the Farmers' Union, well organised and having a political fund of from £60,000 to £80,000 at their disposal, can provide their county farmers' organisations with all the facts and figures to defeat the representatives of the agricultural labourers. There is not really quite a balance, but even then, I do not criticise the county committees.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a question, purely for information. I appreciate that in some counties the workers are not well

organised in trade unions, but am I not right in assuming that the trade union officials do in fact appear for them on the county wages committees?

Mr. Williams: Yes, but it may happen that one county agricultural workers' organiser must attend the wages committees in four or five different counties, which makes it almost impossible for him to do justice either to himself or to those whom he tries his best to represent. I remember that at two Parliamentary elections I had a Conservative opponent who was the secretary of the Farmers Union in my area; he was also the farmers' representative on the county wages committee and every time the farmers wanted a reduction or the workers applied for an increase, he always threatened to resign and to bring out the representatives of the farmers and so try to sterilise the committee. What we have said since 1924 is, not that the county wages committees cannot and do not do their job fairly and squarely, but that there ought to be a national wages board appointed by the Minister, and if that board felt that a count)' committee was not doing its job fairly and effectively, it should send back the recommendation to the committee for reconsideration. Every hon. Member on this side would agree to withdraw this Clause and accept another Clause setting up a national wages board. We should then feel that the national wages board, plus the county wages committees, could and would do justice to the labourers; but in the absence of a national wages board, and with our experience of what has not been done since 1931, when all the subsidies began to be given, we feel that we are doing the right thing in the interests of the agricultural labourers, in the interests of agriculture and in the interests of the nation.
If the Government are willing to provide subsidies for certain commodities which are known to be uneconomic— in some cases because of a possible emergency, and in some cases because we must grow more feeding stuffs on our own land— the least we can expect, if we are to keep the best on the land, is that a wage more consistent with modern requirements shall be given to them. Let no hon. Member opposite talk further about administrative difficulties. We know that this Clause would create such difficulties,


but we know also that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Government, if they wanted to do so, could remove the difficulties. Let hon. Members opposite not talk about anomalies. We know that anomalies would be created, but we know also that anomalies exist at the present time. All that we ask the House to do is, not necessarily to give 100 percent, support to the words of this Clause but to support the principle embodied in it, and to send a word of encouragement to the countryside, for the first time since 1924.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: The whole House appreciates the sincerity of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), and we always like to hear his views, with a very large part of which I am sure almost every hon. Member is in agreement. I should like the hon. Member to satisfy our curiosity by telling us how he arrived at his interesting calculation with regard to a farm of 500 acres which receives subsidies amounting to £2,000 a year, for certainly that is not something which falls within my experience. I believe, as much as hon. Members opposite do, that the wages paid to agricultural workers are too low, have always been too low, and ought to be raised. I am certain the time will come when that will happen, and I hope that the country will not be driven into increasing the wages merely because agricultural labour is impossible to obtain. That would be a very unsatisfactory way of attaining an object which all of us wish to attain. 
I am in the fortunate position of having extraordinarily good agricultural workers on my own farm, and none of them is paid as little as 40s. a week; and in addition, I am glad to be able to say that they have cottages which have not only electricity but also water laid on. I believe that every farmer in England looks forward to being able to do the same thing for his workers. I do not know why it is that a man who works on a farm is paid so much less than a man who works in a town. I have never been able to understand why a man who drives an omnibus or an underground train in London should be paid twice as much as a man who drives pigs, which is a very much harder thing to do. But it does seem to be inherent in our present sys tem. It is a result of the old feeling on

the part of the towns that they must have cheap food. Until that feeling is broken down, the agricultural workers will not get decent wages. 
Coming to the new Clause, I am afraid I was not swayed by the argument of the hon. Member for Don Valley, when he asked us to disregard the terms of the Clause and vote in favour of it because we believe in something else. this Clause would provide that a fanner who grows oats and barley and raises sheep should pay his agricultural labourers 40s. a week, whereas a farmer who, like myself, produces milk, would not be obliged to do so. Obviously, that would be an absurd position. I am sure the House will agree that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture made a most convincing case for the rejection of this Clause, and I hope it will be clearly understood in all parts of the House that those who vote for the rejection of the Clause are not voting against increased wages for agricultural labourers.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: This evening we have had another striking example of hon. Members opposite using very nice language and agreeing with us in everything, but not supporting what we propose. I always admire the way in which hon. Members opposite say that they agree with us, when our case is as good a case as could be put forward by anybody, and say that everyone wants, to do just as we want to do, but try to explain that it cannot be done now. I take it that we want to do something for agriculture generally. The revival o': agriculture is one of the chief planks of the "Tory plat form, and hon. Members opposite say that they want to see whether something cannot be done to improve the conditions in agriculture, both for the farmers and the land workers. Yet, when we try to obtain some improvement in the low wages of the workers, hon. Members opposite oppose us. At the present time, according to figures that hive been given us, the agricultural worker receives 34s. 9.d. a week for a 52 hours week, making a wage of 8d. an hour. Does anybody argue that 8d. an hour Is a sufficient wage for any worker, on the land or anywhere else? What we ask in this Clause is that there should be a slight increase— not as much as we would like, by any means— of Id. an hour.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made the argument that the Clause would not apply to every farmer; one farmer would have to pay the increase and another farmer, who might be better off, would not have to pay it. That is a surprising argument. I have always found that if the wages of one section of workers in an industry are improved, the other people in the industry have a corresponding improvement. At the present time, the farmers who are better off are able to pay say, 45s. a week to some workers. That has been done in some cases. Only to-day, I was told by an hon. Member opposite that he knows of a farmer having a mixed farm who pays a minimum of 48s. a week. It can be done, if only there is the desire to do it. The argument is that those who already get less wages might not get an increase, as the farmers for whom they work might escape this liability. My contention is that if there were an increase in one section, it would be followed by the lower-paid workers getting an increase. 
I want to impress upon hon. Members opposite the fact that at the present time the farm labourers are not getting sufficient pay to enable them to have a decent standard of life. I want hon. Members opposite to apply their minds to this matter. If they can convince me that 34s. 9d. a week enables an agricultural labourer to have a decent standard of life, I am willing to fall in with their argument. So far hon. Members opposite have said that they agree with us that the wages should be sufficient, but that the means of increasing them are not there. I maintain that if we set up a minimum below which the wages must not fall, then naturally it will follow that means will be found of paying those wages. In 1912, we fought for a minimum wage for mineworkers, and at that time it was said that that wage could not be paid. We insisted, and Parliament carried the proposal; and the coal industry adjusted itself to meet the extra cost. That minimum wage was fought for by a well-organised trade union, and for that reason, we were able to get it. 
I declare that if to-morrow the farm workers were strong enough to say that they would not work under a minimum of 40s., the House would see to it that they got it. But they are not well

organised, and to-night I am making a humanitarian plea to the House of Commons on their behalf. I ask the House to give them, without the necessity for any stoppage, what everyone agrees they ought to have. The Minister has a great opportunity this afternoon. He has come to his present position in order to improve agriculture, but if he wants to secure a more lasting credit to his name, he can do so by declaring that he stands for the farm worker as well as for the farmer, and that the time has come when the wages of the farm workers should be on a higher level. I was glad to see that in Committee a number of hon. Members opposite spoke their minds on this question and that the vote on the proposal was very close. I hope that the arguments which have been put forward from this side, and have not been refuted, will prevail with the rank and file of the Tory party and will convince them of the necessity for doing justice to the workers on the land. I appeal to them to give us their support in helping to put the farm workers of this country on a decent standard of life.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Like most hon. Members I admired the speech of the Minister for the sympathy which it showed for the farm worker. It seemed to me that we had now, perhaps for the first time, a Minister who really understood and felt for the position of the under dog in farming, and who appreciated the vital position which he occupied in our national life. I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was entitled to recall the various useful Measures which the Government have passed for agriculture. But beyond expressing sympathy with the workers, and the hope that somehow at some time, through the machinery of the agricultural wages committees, their lot would be improved, what did my right hon. and gallant Friend say to make it possible for those of us who voted for this new Clause in Committee to alter our views to-night? The Minister undertook no new obligation, and promised no fresh initiative to deal with the problem of wages. As far as he and his Department are concerned, there is to be no direct action of any kind designed to bring about what is, I imagine, the unanimous wish of the House, namely, that the benefits of this and similar Measures of assistance to farmers shall be passed on fully and at


once to the men who work on the land. That is, I believe, the desire of the whole community. 
There are, as hon. Members have testified, hundreds, it may be thousands, of cases, in which that transference of State assistance from the farmer to the worker has been and is being made. One knows of many efficient and progressive farmers, with good land, good management and perhaps a certain amount of good luck who are able to pay and are paying wages substantially in excess of £2 a week and providing cottages and working conditions of which one can be proud. If all farmers were as progressive, as enlightened, and as fortunate as those there would be no need for this new Clause, because they would do of their own volition what the Clause proposes. Unfortunately those happy conditions represent not the rule but rather the exception in agriculture. We know, despite the quarter-deck outbursts of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), that the great majority of farmers in the last five or six years have been prevented by low prices from making any substantial improvement in wages and conditions. There is ample proof, if the right hon. Gentleman desires it, about Scottish conditions from the most authoritative sources, which negatives nearly all he said about the lack of need or justification for this Bill. We know that many farmers, even after a good year like 1937, have been afraid, because of uncertainty as to the future, to hand on immediately to their workers the benefit of increased profits. One can under stand their caution. But we know too— it is a stain upon the fanning industry— that there are some farmers, though I believe them to be a small minority, in every county and shire who even after years of comparative prosperity, consistently and persistently exploit their workers by paying inexcusably low wages and allowing scandalous housing and other conditions to prevail. For such action no justification can be found. 
For the decent man who is trying hard, but who is unable because of general economic conditions to do what we all desire, I have the greatest sympathy. It is on behalf of such farmers that Bills of this kind are introduced. It is on their behalf that every subsidy Measure has

been brought to this House; it is on their behalf that I have voted for every subsidy proposal; and it is on their behalf that I shall continue to do so. I go further. In their interests "here will have to be still further measures of assistance. In this connection I must say I was rather uneasy in hearing the Minister say that the circle of State aid for farming had now been completed. The circle has not been completed. I know that there is a subsidy for livestock, but it is not price insurance, and there is no price insurance for poultry, or for half a dozen other products that one could mention. Therefore, do not let us imagine that this Measure to-day is the end of the vital aids which this Government must provide for agriculture.
I am satisfied that the good, progressive farmers are in the majority, and that given reasonable prices they are ready to pass on a fair share of their rewards to the worker. In those cases the agricultural wages committees undoubtedly provide the proper machinery for passing on that benefit. But as regards the other type of farmer to which I have referred, the hard, heartless reactionary who looks upon his men, or would like to look upon them, not as free workers in this democratic age but rather as serfs of the Middle Ages, I have no sympathy nor would I show him the slightest mercy. He is, as I have said, a blot on the fair name of the industry. It was principally in the interests of the farm workers who come under farmers of that type that I pressed for the establishment of agricultural wages committees in Scotland long before the Bill setting up these committees appeared in this House. I imagine that it was in the interests of such workers that all of us supported the compulsory measures introduced by that Act, 1 had hoped that with the introduction of those committees in Scotland, as in England, we should have overcome some of the chief difficulties and put an end to exploitation and perhaps done something to stem the tide which is draining the countryside of its best blood. 
I confess I have been disappointed. I find that low wages are still prevalent. I came across a case in my own part of the world only a fortnight. ago of a plough man with a family of nine children, with only 25s. a week in cash coming into the


house. It is impossible for a plough man's wife to clothe and feed a family like that on such wages. There were, of course, perquisites, such as free house, meal, milk and potatoes, but will any body say that that remuneration is sufficient? That may be an exceptional case but I could find others very nearly the same. Wages in scores of cases are much too low, and the standard of accommodation in the cottages remains a long way behind that which is available for workers in the towns. It is the wives who feel this worst, and they naturally ask why women in the towns should have all the amenities of running water, hot and cold, and washing facilities, while they in the country have to walk perhaps half a mile from the house to get water. As I look around the contrast between town and country seems to become more marked as the years pass, and so the migration from the country side continues. I hope the Minister is alive to its significance. This migration is not only a national problem, it is a national calamity, affecting national de fence in the most vital way. In the monthly agricultural report of the Department of Agriculture in Scotland dated 1st July— this month— I find under the heading of "Labour" this startling sentence:
The supply of farm labour was adequate in only six districts.
I do not know how many districts there are in Scotland— 30, 40 or it may be 50. But only in six of them was there labour sufficient to do essential work. The re port continues:
 Dairy workers were not equal to the demand in Dunbarton, North Ayr, and Dumfries. Casual labour was scarce in most areas. Turnip singlers were difficult to secure in North-East Angus.
Some action will have to be taken to meet this new danger to the security of our land, and it must be taken quickly. I know that this new Clause would create serious anomalies. I recognise that fact, but is it unreasonable to ask that since you provide a minimum price for the produce of the farm you should by the same token provide a minimum price for the labour? Is there anything illogical about that? Why cannot it be accepted in principle by the Government? I appreciate the complexity of the task with which my right hon. and gallant Friend is faced, but do not let him imagine that people outside are not watching this par-

ticular matter closely. There ought to be a relationship between what the State provides for the farmer, and what it provides for the farm worker. I wonder did my right hon. and gallant Friend notice in the "Times" this morning the report of the agricultural correspondent of that paper which stated:
 Many Members of Parliament and the general public would like to see a definite relationship established between the guaranteed prices for farm produce and farm wages.
It is very difficult to convince a town audience that we are doing all we can for the farm workers, if we resist this effort to apply to labour the principle which we are now applying to produce. How can you argue that the principle is right in the one case, and wrong in the other? 
I beg my right hon. and gallant Friend to reconsider the position. Even if he cannot accept at once the principle underlying this new Clause, there is a number of things that he could do to satisfy us, things that he must know he could do. He could, for example, circularise the wages committees urging upon them the desirability of raising wages. He might invite the chairmen of all the wages committees to meet him in conference. He might invite the National Farmers' Union to consider the matter. If the National Farmers' Union were to suggest to their local secretaries as a friendly gesture to propose an increase of half-a-crown a week at each of their district committees that would be a very useful thing to do; and my right hon. and gallant Friend might do that. At least he might say to us, "I will consider doing something," but to-day he has done nothing but say, "I have no direct proposal to make," and that is to ignore deep and widespread feeling throughout the country. Let him recall his earlier efforts. When first he assumed office he began a series of talks with farmers and later with the representation of farm workers. We have seen the results of his negotiations with the farmers. They are here in this Bill. I am prepared to stand by all the proposals which my right hon. and gallant Friend makes in this regard and to justify them before any town audience. But whose are the fruits of his negotiations with the workers? Let me see one result. How can my right hon. and gallant Friend expect us to support him as we would desire to do when nothing is


offered, as far as we can see, to meet the burden of low wages and miserable housing? The reputation of the Minister is at stake in this matter. This may be the acid test, not only of his sincerity, which I believe is never in doubt, but also of his success as the Minister responsible for the prosperity and the progress of the greatest and the oldest of British industries.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. De la Bère: In Committee I predicted what would come to pass, and it has come to pass. In Committee I said it was never the time and never the place for the Government to do anything for the agricultural farm labourer, and exactly what I predicted has come to pass. I have waited patiently here ever since the opening of the Debate. I listened to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), and I listened to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture, hoping against hope— having a very warm affection for him— that he would say something which would enable me to get up and say something nice back. I deeply regret that I cannot say anything nice back, because he has not given us any hope. It is absolutely futile to get up and suggest that this proposal has the sympathy of every Member of this House unless some alternative suggestion can be put forward, and no alternative suggestion has been put forward. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to create and bring into operation some concrete and crystallised plan to assist the agricultural farm worker. I fully admit that the Amendment is not very happily drafted— I am sure that those who have drafted it would not take exception to that— but it is the principle behind the Amendment that is important. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton told us that the principle had his entire sympathy, and speakers on this side of the House have said that every time they have risen to speak. In spite of that, we are going into the Division Lobbies to vote for or against the Government, according to our ideas, but nothing which will really give us any real hope that anything is to be done for the agricultural labourer is forthcoming. I say with determination that it is not the case that the Government cannot afford to assist the agricultural worker; it is the case that the Government cannot afford not to do

something for him, and they should have done it a long time ago.

6.35 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I think that we on this side of the House should thank the last two speakers for their speeches. If they continue to make it dear to us that their hearts are in the right place, it will soon, one hopes, become clear to them that their seats are in the wrong place. The Minister said that if this question were a matter of principle: as to whether or not farm workers should receive £ 2 a week, not a voice would be raised against it, but we are entitled to remind him that no voice has been raised for that principle from the Government Front Bench or from among the ranks of his general, regular, and automatic supporters. The Government have had this matter in their hands. They have been considering it deeply for eight years, and they have been considering it intensively ever since about last Christmas. The ball has been at their feet. They have had the power to put into practice any principle of which they were in favour, yet this principle, against which the Minister has said that no voice could be raised, has not found a single Ministerial voice to support it in the framing of the Bill.
If the Minister wants to tie us down to the exact words of the Cause, it is relevant to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this was the only way in which we could raise this point on this Bill. There are certain rules of order which bind Members of this House and which make it difficult for us to raise points of principle except by tabling Amendments in certain forms, and if an objection is taken to the precise form of the Clause, we have a right to point out that this was indeed the only form in which we could have mace it possible for the House to discuss this principle, as to which the Minister says that no: one voice would be raised against it If the Minister is entitled to his point, I claim that we are entitled to ours, that in speaking and voting for this Clause we are dealing with the principle that wages should be increased at this time, and increased by machinery other than that of the county wages committees.
I support this principle in the long-term interests of the farmers. I think most hon. Members will agree that for some time past two processes have been


going on. There has been year by year the steady leaving of the land by agricultural workers, and going on contemporaneously with that process there has been a turning-over by agriculture from methods of production requiring large numbers of labourers to methods of production requiring fewer labourers. The two processes have gone on side by side, but I believe they are separating now, and that the turning-over to methods of production requiring fewer workers has gone just about as far as it can go, whereas the drain from the land has not yet been arrested and is still in full force. If this process is allowed to continue, in a very few years a very much wider gap than we have at present between the need for agricultural workers and the number of workers available and trained for that work will make itself felt on the countryside; and though many farmers would say to-day that the payment of £ 2 a week as a wage would put them into great difficulties, I submit that these difficulties, which they would have to encounter now, would be as nothing to the difficulties which they will have to encounter five or ten years hence, when it will not be a question of paying a wage which would retain on the land workers who are already there, but when it will be a question of paying the very much higher wage which will be required in order to attract back to the land workers who, if we do nothing about it, will be leaving the land in the course of the next four or five years. Therefore, I think one may quite sincerely support this Amendment in the best interests of the agricultural workers.
Then I would support it from another point of view also. If this Clause were carried, if this principle, rather, of increased wages were put into effect, it is said that it would create difficulties. Very well, if difficulties were created, the industry, and above all the Ministry dealing with the industry, would be forced at long last to address itself to the solution of those difficulties and problems with more vigour and more real determination than it has shown up to now. When I talk of dealing with the problem, I do not mean that it should become more necessary to educate the town worker up to the necessity of paying a higher price for his food. I do not believe that that is the solution of the agricultural problem. I would refer rather to three figures. The Government are paying to agricul-

ture now round about £ 30,000,000 a year, and I do not say that that is out of proportion to what other industries are receiving. Meanwhile agricultural workers, the men who produce the food, are being paid £ 60,000,000 a year; and in wages and profits there is being paid about £ 300,000,000 a year to the men who distribute the food. I believe that that sum of £ 300,000,000 represents the real hope of agricultural prosperity. It is not too much to say that in eight years of patching and mending, of putting a bottom into this and devising temporary measures for that, the Government have not scratched the surface of that £ 300,000,000. On top of that, we have found, in Committee at any rate, that it was out of Order and beyond the scope of this Bill, which is called the Agricultural Development Bill, to move an Amendment so as in any way to prevent any part of the benefits which the Government are giving from going into the hands of the landlords.
I, therefore, support the new Clause on the ground that it is in the long-term interest of farmers to pay somewhat higher wages now, rather than to face an appalling labour crisis in 10 years' time which will force wages far higher in order to attract workers back to the land; and it would also be in the interest of agriculture as being something which would force the Minister and the Government to deal with what I believe are the real problems confronting them in the industry to-day.

6.44 p.m.

Colonel Sir Edward Ruggles-Brise: I think, perhaps, the House should give attention, to a rather greater degree than it has done, to the question of where the fund is available out of which an increase of wages could be paid. Hon. Member after hon. Member, from all quarters of the House, has got up and said that it is desirable that there should be a definite increase in the wages of agricultural labourers, and, of course, everybody would desire to see a rise in those wages, but I think we must be practical. Where in fact is the money to come from? The hon. Member who moved the new Clause mentioned, in his opening speech, the words "the capacity of the industry to pay." He indicated that in his view, as far as I understood it, there was not


at this moment an adequate capacity to pay within the industry. I think that will not be challenged by those who heard his speech. If there is not sufficient money within the industry to meet the increase in wages which seems to be so generally desired on all sides— and quite rightly— where, then, is the money to come from? Is it to come from additional subsidies?

Mr. T. Williams: My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) never even hinted that the money for these increased wages was not in the industry. What he complained of was that we had no information on either the costs of production or the actual financial situation of agriculture. In a passing sentence he said, "If the money is not in the industry," but he never even hinted that the money was not there.

Sir E. Ruggtes-Brise: Perhaps the hon. Member himself suggests that there is sufficient money in the industry now to pay this increase.

Mr. Williams: Most certainly. With all the subsidies that have been paid I say that the money is in the industry. If this Clause were accepted and the money was found not to be there, then we should soon hear from the farmers, and it would have to be found.

Sir E. Ruggles-Brise: How does the hon. Member explain the fact that we have already heard from the farmers? He will not dispute that the agricultural community as a whole, with, possibly, individual exceptions here and there, has been going through a very difficult time. That is notorious, so much so that certain sums of money have been extracted from a reluctant Treasury in order that agriculture should not fall into further decay. Therefore, I think it is perfectly clear that at this moment there are not sufficient funds available within the industry itself to meet this new suggested cost, however desirable the new cost may be.

Mr. Kirkwood: When the hon. and gallant Member says the money is not in the industry, will he tell the House where the £ 1,000,000 per week, £ 52,000,000 a year— including de-rating and subsidies— which has been given to agriculture is going to?

Sir E. Ruggles-Brise: I do not accept the figure given by the hon. Member as being at all correct. It is not nearly as much as that. But I would point out to him that the largest outlay in the production of food happens to be in labour, and therefore the bulk of that money must have gone in the payment of wages, as, indeed, it has. Did the hon. Member hear the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker)? He told us that he had negotiated hours and wages in the mining industry, and used these words: "The industry adjusted itself to the new scale of wages." Yes, but what in fact happened? The last time there was a rise of wages in the mining industry the price of coal was raised to the consumer.

Mr. Tinker: I say the same again. Any industry ought to afford a decent standard of living to those working in it, and let the product pay for it.

Sir E. Ruggles-Brise: In the coal industry the last increase of wages came from the sale of the product, the coal, to the consumer, who had to pay more for it in order to meet the increased wage bill. On the same analogy, is it right that the community should get its food out of the sweat of the brow either of the fanner or of the worker on the farm? If it was right in the case of the miners to force up their wages and make the consumer pay mere for coal, surely, on the same analogy, the general level of the price of foodstuffs would have to be raised in order to meet the increased wage bill on the farm. Surely the two things are on all fours. Are hon. and right hon. Members of the Labour party going down to their constituencies to say, "Look here, you all have to pay more for your food because we have decided that there is to be an increase in wages to the agricultural worker"? Great silence.

Mr. Kirkwood: If necessary we will do that, but at the same time we will do away with landlords. They are a lot of robbers, anyway.

Sir E. Ruggles-Brise: I promised that I should not detain the House very long, and so I will not enter into what would be a very engaging argument with the hon. Member, but I just wish to say that that really is the issue. Whilst we are all only too anxious to see the lot of the agricultural worker raised, we must be practical and say where the money is to come


from, and so far no very fruitful suggestions on that fundamental point have emerged from this Debate.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon (Sir E. Ruggles-Brise) seems to imagine that the only time when the principle of a living minimum wage can be established is when the people conducting an industry admit openly that they have the money in their coffers with which to pay it. He suggested that some things are notorious. I would remind him that the reputation of the farmer is notorious. Very often he is notorious for refusing to give information that is desired. If the money to pay this minimum living wage is not in the industry it ought to be proved that it is not. Let the House bear in mind that the living wage which is here asked for is dependent upon the farmer receiving a subsidy, which, after all, comes from the common purse and increases the difficulties of the people, who have to pay more for their food as well as more in taxation. I have several times heard hon. Members opposite deploring the state of agriculture in this country and suggesting ways and means of improving it, but it has not yet dawned on the Minister that one of the finest things that could be done for agriculture would be to make it possible for an agricultural labourer to earn a reasonable wage.
It has been suggested from the benches opposite that in order to retain men in agriculture the amenities of their homes should be improved. I realise the necessity for improving the amenities in the home, as one speaking from experience, but I still say that the greatest drawback to getting workers for agriculture is the wage which they receive. The thought that all their lives they will be short of money is what drives young men from the land. If it does not drive off the land the man who has grown up on the soil it drives away his son who has seen the grinding poverty which is the lot of the agricultural worker. If the principle of this Clause were accepted it would do more, I contend, for agriculture than all the subsidies have done up to now. In the first instance it would bring the farmer right up against it. It would say to him that he could only carry on his business if he were prepared to pay

his workers a wage which the State had declared must be not less than £ 2 a week. He would have to work his business on that economic basis. That is what he is doing at present, when the wage is fixed at 34s. Will anyone say that an extra 6s. a week to agricultural labourers will spell the difference between prosperity and ruin for the industry? Are we to go on with this cycle of subsidy after subsidy, instead of getting down to the fundamental point, which is that the man responsible for the tilling of the land, and that is the labourer, should be given an adequate minimum wage?
If there is one man with whom I do not like to came into contact it is the man who is in sympathy with me or the man who agrees with me in principle. I know immediately I hear either of those phrases that there is nothing for me. I have heard it time and again from the masters in the cotton industry. They say, "Our hearts are going out to you in sympathy, we know what you are suffering "— and then I always say to myself, "That is the end of it. Another few weeks on sympathy." Sympathy is not enough. The agricultural labourer has had sympathy from the beginning. I know how 20 years ago the hearts of the farmers bled for the agricultural labourer because of the long hours he had to work, and I know that the conditions in the industry now did not obtain then. Farmers have not always been doing badly. Will anybody suggest that agriculture has always been backward in this country, that farmers have always been farming at a loss, that there has never been anything got out of the land? The records at Somerset House will give the lie to that suggestion. Is there anybody here who is prepartd to tell me of a time when the farmers came forward and out of their sympathy offered anything to the agricultural labourer?
It may be notorious that agriculture is doing badly to-day, but the farmer has a notorious record in his treatment of the agricultural labourer. Here is an opportunity for us to say to the farmer, "You can have what we think you need in order to aid the industry, but the price of your having it is that you pay a minimum wage to the adult man who is engaged on your farm." I was sorry to hear the Minister come forward with the argument that there are the aged and the infirm who would come under this Clause because


they are adults. How often have I heard that argument trotted out—that if a minimum wage is sought it will drive the aged man off the land or out of industry, because this does not apply only to agriculture? I am ashamed that any countryman of mine should bring forward such an argument. After all, you have to recognise that the aged man, who possibly is now now an economic proposition, has been an economic proposition all his life. He has grown old in the work that he has been doing for that farmer. Now it is suggested that we cannot decide that the adult labourer must be paid £2 a week because the old man would have to come in too or would have to be dismissed; and so, in the interests of not dismissing the old men, we are to refuse to do justice to the others. That argument is not worthy of an English or a British Cabinet Minister and I hope that it will not be used again in this House.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I did not use that argument at all.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes. If that was not the argument, then what the Minister said did not mean anything. I know that he said: "I won't press that argument," and I was very glad to hear him say he would not press it, and I hope that he will not use it again, nor any of his colleagues either, because it is not worthy of a Britisher and the House ought not to stand for it. If you want to rebut an argument rebut it on reasonable grounds, but do not pretend that you are doing less than justice to the other men in order not to do what you imagine might be an injustice to the older men by turning them off the land. After all if a man is so old that he is not worth £2, if he is no longer an economic proposition on the wage he is receiving now under these present wonderful conditions, I suggest that he will not be much worse off on 10s. a week. He may be left, as is very often the case when the farmer finds he is no longer an economic proposition, to call upon the mercy of the public assistance committee. That is their lot anyhow, and if they are going there I do not mind their being sent there by doing justice to the adult worker. The Minister may talk of the impracticability of this proposal. I know it will create anomalies in the sense that the farm labourer who is working in these particular branches of agriculture would receive

£2 a week, whereas the labourer who is engaged in sheep farming would not. Well, I am not going to burke an issue of that kind. If I have to choose between the creation of an anomaly and doing justice to the men who come under this Measure, I am going to do justice, because we can rectify an anomaly. I believe the agricultural workers themselves will rectify it immediately the principle has been established.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: The farmer has a very easy way out of his difficulty. He does not even need the subsidy. If he finds that the subsidy will not pay him, and that a wage of £2 a week to his labourers is going to bring him down, he can say, "Away with the subsidy." We have heard the argument that the money is not there, but I could suggest a method whereby the farmers could keep their labourers, who are very wise and experienced men. There is no more skilled man than an old agricultural labourer, and very often old labourers are kept on farms simply because of their wisdom. I remember an old fellow coming to cut the grass in my orchard. He was 84, and he was the only man who could wield a scythe properly. They had to carry him, but once he got hold of the scythe he cut it all right. But he had done that work all his life. These old agricultural labourers are of great value to all farmers.
As I have said, I can suggest a method far simpler than cash wages. We heard from an hon. Member opposite that there was £300,000,000 a year going to the distributive trades. That is where money should be saved. In this country it is always the middleman who skims off the cream: the man who is doing the hard work gets very little in every industry. When the farm worker has been paid his wage he has got to buy what he wants in the local shops. If he wants butter or tea or anything else he has to go to the local grocer, and all the time he is contributing towards the £300,000,000 of the middlemen. Now, what is to prevent the farmers giving every man a piece of land on which he will be able to grow all his own supplies? It will cost the fanner very little and will mean much to the farm labourer. I remember a farmer in Perthshire who said that in his grandfather's day there were smallholders, each with a


few acres and a few cows, and he said, "These were our farm servants, and they borrowed our ploughs and our stock and everything we had."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and learned Member is quite out of order in going into the question of smallholdings.

Mr. Macquisten: I will leave that, but now we have nothing but casual labourers, with no sense of responsibility; they are mere wage-earners. The farmers ought to supply them with a bit of ground on which they could keep a couple of pigs and raise chickens, and that would mean something far more than the 6s. a week increase of wages which this proposal would mean. It would enable a farm labourer to raise a large family, and, above all, it would give him a comfortable house. The first thing in dealing with labour is to make the women comfortable.

Mr. Kirkwood: Do you mean that your ideal is that the countryman should work all day for the farmer, and then work all night for himself?

Mr. Macquisten: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is singularly unacquainted with conditions on the land. A man cannot work all night; the only thing he can do at night is to poach. Under the system of which I was speaking a man could get time off. I know farmers who do that, and they have the most contented staffs in the world— men who were with their fathers and grandfathers before them, simply because they look upon them as fellow workers on the land, and the farmer treats them as his equal. I remember a celebrated sheep farmer, who had all his farm men working together. That is the old clan system. We do not believe in having bosses around; we are chiefs.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it is about time the hon. and learned Member started to address himself to the; Clause.

Mr. Macquisten: I am addressing myself to the Clause in showing how the farmer would be a great deal better off without dipping his hands into a subsidy, or his balance, or his overdraft, if he treated his men in the way I have described. All that is necessary is that he should have a semi-partnership with his labourers and he would then be infinitely better off; he would have the loyalty of his men and would keep them all his days. That is the true way to keep the man on the land. They would all be better off if they got a bit of land for themselves.

7.8 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: We are all agreed about what we want to do, and I think we are all equally agreed that this Clause is not the right way to do it. I recollect many years ago hearing the case put in this House by the Opposition for wages boards, and any hon. Member who heard the Minister's speech must have been convinced that we ought to use the authorised wages machinery. I fully agree that when subsidies are paid there is a time lag before they become effective, and I think in all parts of the industry in which there are subsidies there should be a condition that the farm labourers should benefit. I should not object to a minimum wage, but it should be done through the wages committees in the counties. In voting against this Clause I shall do so because I am convinced that the Minister himself feels as strongly as anybody in this House that if after nine months there has not been a general levelling up of wages through the regular wages machinery, then other steps must be taken, but on a more general basis so as to embrace all sections of agriculture.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 213.

Division No. 246.]
AYES.
[7.10 p.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Bellenger, F. J.
Cocks, F. S.


Adams, D. M (Poplar, S.)
Bann, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Callindridge, F.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Bevan, A.
Cove, W. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Broad, F. A.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford


Ammon, C. G.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Daggar, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Buchanan, G.
Dalton, H.


Banfield, J. W.
Burke, W. A.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Barnes, A. J.
Cape, T.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Barr, J.
Charleton, H. C.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Bartiett, C. V. O.
Chater, D.
Day, H.


Batey, J.
Cluse, W. S.
Dobbie, W.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)




Ede, J. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Seely, Sir K. M.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Leach, W.
Shinwell, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lee, F.
Simpson, F. B.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Leonard, W.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn''s)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Logan, D. G.
Sloan, A.


Frankel, D.
Lunn, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Gallacher, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Gardner, B. W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Leas- (K'ly)


Garro Jones, G. M.
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, T. (Narmanton)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacLaren, A.
Sorensen, R. W.


Gibson, R. (Greenook)
Maclean, N.
Stephen, C.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Marshall, F.
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)


Green, W. H. (Depttord)
Mathers, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H''ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Greenwood, Rt. Han. A.
Maxton, J.
Stokes, R. R.


Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Montague, F.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Thorne, W.


Groves, T. E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Thurtle, E.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Tinker, J. J.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Naylor, T. E.
Tomlinson, G.


Hardie, Agnes
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Viant, S. P.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Paling, W.
Watkins, F. C.


Hayday, A.
Parkinson, J. A.
Watson, W. McL.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pearson, A.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Welsh, J. C.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Poole, C. C.
Westwood, J.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Price, M. P.
White, H. Graham


Isaacs, G. A.
Pritt, D. N.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Jagger, J.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Ridley, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Riley, B.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ritson. d.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)



Kirkwood, D.
Rothschild, J. A. de
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.ߞ


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Salter, Or. A. (Bermondsey)
Mr. John and Mr. Adamson.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Grimston, R. V.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cooke, J. (Hammersmith, S.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hambro, A. V.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Hannah, I. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cross, R. H.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Apsley, Lord
Culverwell, C. T.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Davidson, Visoountess
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Assheton, R,
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Denville, Alfred
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Doland, G. F.
Hepworth, J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Donner, P. W.
Holmes, J. S.


Bernays, R. H.
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Hopkinson, A.


Blair, Sir R.
Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Drewe, C.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Bossom, A. C.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Duggan, H. J.
Hunter, T.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hurd. Sir P. A.


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Dunglass, Lord
Hutchinson, G. C.


Brass, Sir W.
Eastwood, J. F.
Jennings, R.


Briscoe, Capt. R, G.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Kellett, Major E. O.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Ellis, Sir G.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Brown, Rt. Hon, E. (Leith)
Emery, J. F.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kimball, L.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Carver, Major W. H.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Cary, R. A.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Lees-Jones, J.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Fleming, E. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Lewis, O.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Furness, S. N.
Liddall, W. S.


Christie, J. A.
Fyle. D. P. M.
Lindsay, K. M.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Little, J.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Locker Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Gridley, Sir A. B.
M'Connell, Sir J.







McCorquodale, M. S.
Remer, J. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


MacDonald, Sir Murdesh (Inverness)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Rosbotham, Sir T.
Touche, G. C.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Train, Sir J.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rowlands, G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Markham, S. F.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Turton, R. H.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wakefield, W. W.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Salt, E. W.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sandiman, Sir N. S.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Moore, Lieut. Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Schuster, Sir G. E.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Scott, Lord William
Warrender, Sir V.


Nall, Sir J.
Selley, H. R.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D,
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wedderburn, K. J. S.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Snadden, W. McN.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Petherick, M.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Pilkington, R.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Porritt, R. W.
Storey, S.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Radford, E. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wragg, H.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Rankin, Sir R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
York, C.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Sutcliffe, H.



Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Tasker, Sir R. I.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.ߞ


Reid, J. s. C. (Hillhead)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Munro.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Thomas Williams.

Sir R. Acland: On a point of Order. The fact that you have called the hon. Member indicates. that the next new Clause on the Paper— (Arbitration as to increased value of land)— in the names of some of my hon. Friends and myself is not to be called.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The new Clause to which the hon. Member refers has not been selected.

Sir R. Acland: As I am not allowed to ask for any reason I can only make a guess at the possible reason why the Clause has not been selected, and I would submit one point upon it. I assume that the Clause appears to be out of order as being outside the scope of the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill which deals with the payment of subsidies and allows us to raise a point dealing with adjustment of the sale price of farms so as not to include those subsidies. That might appear too big an issue to be included within the scope of the Bill, but I submit that there is one Clause within which it might come, the last, which contains the short Title. This is the Government's Agricultural Development Bill, and I submit that within that Title we might be able to discuss a principle, which is very vital to us and to which we attach a very great deal of importance, that where Government assistance is given it should be kept within agriculture

proper, and not be passed on to those who sell land.

Mr. Speaker: I have given very careful consideration to this new Clause, and I have decided that it should not be selected.

CLAUSE 1 — (Oats subsidy payments.)

7.21 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out "three-pence," and to insert "fivepence."
In discussion during the passing of the Act of 1937, the explanation which was given from the Treasury bench on this subject was that the Ministry might find themselves in the unhappy position of paying a very large number of extremely small sums to farmers while the actual cost of administration would be more than the amount which the farmers would obtain. For that reason the Ministry resisted an Amendment to reduce the margin from 5d. to 3d. The Bill is different from that which we were considering then. Under the previous Bill, persons who did not receive the wheat deficiency payments could receive only six times the difference between the standard price and the market price. In the Bill now under consideration the person who receives subsidy by way of wheat deficiency payments can receive 14 times the difference between the standard price and the market price if that price is below 17s. 7d. per cwt. I recognise that to that extent there is a difference,


as the sum can be multiplied by 14, instead of by six as hitherto.
What I am wondering about— I am telling the right hon. Gentleman once again— is that in connection with all these subsidies the Government take no power to control in the slightest degree the method of selling oats, barley or even sheep. There is no encouragement for the farmer who grows oats and sells a portion of them as a cash crop, to get the best price for it, because he knows that if the market price is less than 8s. or 7s. 9d. the Government will provide him with the rest. We think that a margin of 5d. is small enough. The figure provided in the Bill for the grower of oats is actually 1s. per cwt. larger than the average for the last nine years, and, therefore, there is something upon which to work. Bearing all those things in mind we think the margin of 5d. is small enough before they start calculating 14 times. The Government have no method of control over the selling of oats and of giving any encouragement to the person who sells a cash crop to get the best price. We, therefore, think that the minimum should be 5d. instead of the margin embodied in Clause I, and we hope that the Minister will agree with us.

7.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I do not think that the question of marketing to which the hon. Gentleman referred towards the end of his observations really arises on this Amendment. He explained at the beginning of his speech that the sole purpose of having a margin of this kind was to prevent administrative expenses from being incommensurate with the amount of the subsidy. That is the only reason for having any margin at all before deficiency payments fall to be made. It was considered that 3d. was the best figure in 1937 because under that Act, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, the payment was actually made in respect of six cwts. an acre. That meant that the minimum payment was to be multiplied by six. Under the Bill you have to multiply the payment not by six but by 14. As 14 times three are 42, the minimum payment under the Bill is is. higher than the minimum payment under the 1937 Act; that is to say, 3s. 6d. for those who do not grow wheat instead of

2s. 6d. There is, therefore, even less chance of administrative expenses being out of proportion to the amount of subsidy paid.
If the Amendment were accepted it would mean that the minimum payment would be 5s. 10d. — five multiplied by 14 — and that would constitute a hardship to farmers in districts where the agricultural conditions which prevail result in their having to sell a great part of their oats as a cash crop. It would deprive them of sums which would be valuable to them if you raised this limit of 5s. 10d. The first year after the subsidy came in I was going round some of the Western Isles and I found one of our inspectors from the Department of Agriculture had gone there for the purpose of dealing with claims for subsidies. In that year there was only a very slight difference between the standard price and the average price, so that deficiency payments were only just over the margin. The inspector was distributing several hundred payments to the crofters, most of whom had not more than an acre or a few acres of oats, and the payment amounted in those cases to not more than a few shillings although it meant a good deal to them. I do not think, considering the great number of crofters, that the amount was incommensurate with the expenses of the supervision which had to be carried out. I hope that the hon. Member will agree that if the figure he suggests were accepted it would probably lead to a distinct hardship for a considerable number of people.

Mr. T. Williams: Is it not correct to say that the person who sells oats and who is also claiming deficiency payment for wheat will still have a multiplication of six times as in 1937?

Mr. Wedderburn: Yes, that is to say, you are putting the minimum payment a bit higher for the class of people who are non wheat. We are raising it to 3s. 6d. instead of 2s. 6d., and that involves reducing it to Is. 6d. in the case of those who are registered wheat producers, but who happen to grow oats as well.

Amendment negatived.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, at the end, to insert:
(3) No oats subsidy payment shall be made unless a person authorised by the appro-


priate Minister certifies that the crop of oats, or the mixed crop, as the case may be, is not unduly small, and has not been prejudicially affected either because of the un-suitability of the land for growing the crop or by negligence in connection with the preparation of the land for the crop or with the sowing, tending or harvesting of the crop, and that no part of the land has been used in that year in a manner calculated to impair the fertility thereof.
I do not need to argue at length the case for this Amendment, because we had a Debate on it in Committee. The objective is that we should have, within the machinery of Clause I, a sufficient and adequate check for the protection of the public funds against the payment of money in respect of inefficient or bad farming. It is bad enough to have to resort to very large payments out of public funds in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, but it would be even worse if in these circumstances we were to pay money out of public, funds in respect of unsatisfactory farming. The proposed new Sub-section has been very carefully drown to cover the reasons in respect of which a decision could be made that subsidy should not be payable. Unless the reasons are set out in this way, and proper provision is made for the giving of a certificate by an authorised person, I feel that the public funds will not be protected.
In the discussion in Committee the Minister did not deny that there would be many cases of inefficient farming. I do not say that he used these words, but in his speech in reply he did not deny it. In fact, I think he supported it. The only question was as to how large the evil of inefficient or unsuitable cultivation might be. He said that they had inspected about 8 per cent. of the acreage in 1938, and that only 1 per cent. of the acreage so inspected would come within the kind of position that we want to prevent by the insertion of these words. He also said that there were some 2,500,000 acres under oats last year and to that we should have to add, in considering the principle of this Measure, the acreage under barley. If 1 per cent. of the acreage laid down to these two crops were taken into account, it might well be that something in the neighbourhood of from 35,000 to 50,000 of the total acres under these crops may be receiving the subsidy without actually showing efficient cultivation. I

think that that is a quite unreasonable percentage to be dealt with in that way.
It was argued by the Minister that of course the Government have the same objective as we have, and that that is the reason for Clause 4, but, the more one looks at Clause 4, the more one sees that no provision at all is made for checking bad cultivation. If this very large sum of money is to be spent, we ought, in the interests of the taxpayer and in the interests of good farming, to see that the crops are so grown that they can be certified as satisfactory by responsible people. No wheat gets a subsidy unless it can be certified as of millable quality, and, while I recognise that there is a difference there in the method of dealing with the final accounts, and that the Government's duty of ensuring a satisfactory standard is passed on to another set of traders, the millers performing the real task of distributing the certificates of millable quality, nevertheless the same objective of good farming ought to be borne in mind in the case of a crop the greater part of which is consumed on the farm. It seems to us that there ought to be as efficient inspection and certification as we lay down in our proposed new Sub-section, and I hope we shall not receive the same kind of half-hearted answer that we had from the Minister upstairs, but that, although for the moment he is the head of an agricultural Department, he will show himself reasonably zealous in protecting the public purse while at the same time giving aid to the objective of good farming.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Riley: I should like to emphasise a point which I hope the Minister will meet, and which is one of the reasons for the Amendment. It is that in the Clause as it stands nothing is laid down specifically as to the efficiency of the cultivation or the suitability of the land used for growing oats or barley upon which a subsidy may be paid. In our view, in order to make any producer eligible for the subsidy, there should be very definite evidence that he has earned the subsidy by efficient cultivation, and that the land he has brought into use for the purpose of growing oats or barley on which subsidy is to be paid should be land that is suitable; and there should


be definite certification that that is the case. Clauses 4 and 34 refer to powers which the Minister may exercise, and Clause 34 says that the Minister may authorise an official or servant to satisfy himself that the land is properly cultivated and is suitable land, but there is nothing to say that a certificate must be issued. In view of the large sums of money which may have to be paid under the Bill, there ought to be this obligation. One has to admit that next year, when the Bill will come into operation, a maximum of something like £ 9,000,000 may have to be paid, under this one Bill, in quite new subsidies on oats, barley and wheat, and, in view of the very substantial sum which Parliament is now going to vote, there ought to be a definite arrangement for some certification that those who receive the subsidy are cultivating their land efficiently and that the land is suitable for the purpose.

7.38 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman himself has pointed out some of the difficulties in accepting this Amendment. There are something like 2,500,000 acres under oats, and there are about 200,000 holdings on which oats are grown; and, in the space of time which would be available, say while dealing with harvest arrangements, it would be mighty difficult to get the inspectors actually on the farm— and of course they would have to be there— to inspect the harvest arrangements. The procedure has been that check inspections have been made. No farmer knows now whether he is going to be inspected or not, and that in itself is a great deterrent against bad fanning or the use of land which is unsuitable for the growing of oats. Never the less, during the Committee stage, fears were expressed that the staff we have at the present moment is not suitable and not sufficiently adequate for the task. I took due note of those complaints, and, in the light of the discussion, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have considered the whole problem again, in order to try to meet the views which have been expressed.
It is proposed now to arrange for an intensification of the work of inspection. In England and Wales, this will be achieved by strengthening the existing

staff of the whole-time officers of the Department who are available for the work, and also by making increased calls on the services of the Ministry's crop reporters, in order to bring under inspection a larger proportion of the farms in respect of which applications for the subsidy may be received. Similar arrangements for increased inspection are contemplated in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. I intimated previously that our experience is that negligent cultivation or evasion of the obligations attaching to the receipt of subsidy is not at all prevalent, but I fully recognise that it is wise to make doubly sure, if we can, and, therefore, we propose to strengthen our staff for the purpose. From a purely practical point of view it would be physically impossible to carry out the Amendment as it is, but I think that farmers will realise that we are going to increase the inspection, and perhaps that will meet the needs of the right hon. Gentleman.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Would the Minister tell us a little more about what he means by increasing the inspectorate? I recall what he said in Committee, and I have listened carefully to what he has now said. I noticed that he said in Committee that there were 2,500,000 acres of land under oats, and that of that acreage rather less than 1 per cent. has come within the terms of Clause 4, that is to say, the cultivation was not what it might be. We are anxious to know that subsidies are not paid to farmers who are abusing the land. One per cent. of 2,500,000 acres means that 25,000 acres of the land under oats —

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: It is 1 per cent. of the holdings.

Mr. Williams: If it is 1 per cent. of the holdings, then there are 2,000 holdings that fail to fulfil the conditions laid down in Clauses 4 and 15. If the House of Commons provides a guaranteed price for the commodity, whether it be oats, barley, sheep, or anything else, we ought at least to know that the farmer is not abusing the privilege, and we ought to know just how the Minister is going to carry out the terms of Clauses 4 and 15. It is no use having a Clause referring to default in connection with cultivation and so on unless the machinery is there to ensure that the terms of the Clause


are carried out. The Minister has told us in effect that they are going to increase their inspectorate. How many test inspectors are there at the moment? What part of their duties can be devoted to this task? How many more are to be appointed? Are these inspections to be made regularly, or irregularly, so that farmers can escape their responsibilities, in spite of the fact that the Act is on the Statute Book? This House for many years has been not ungenerous to agriculture. We want to know whether farmers receiving these gifts are cultivating on sound lines. If we can be assured that the existing inspectorate can depart from its normal functions and allocate so much time to the new functions, we shall perhaps be satisfied, and reconsider our position. We do not want to harass the farmer, but we want to insist on his cultivating the land properly.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I hope my right hon. Friend will give us an assurance that some of the small hill farmers, working often under difficult conditions, are not to be unduly harassed by this new inspectorate. They cannot be expected to conform to the same standards as more prosperous farmers, and they should not be constantly in fear of a harassing inspectorate.

7.48 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: At present we have 300 crop inspectors available to make inspections and 23 land commissioners and assistant commissioners. It is the whole-time land commissioners that

we intend to increase. In the ordinary district, the land commissioner knows the neighbourhood very well and probably knows better than anybody else who the bad farmers may be. Although I cannot, at this moment, say exactly how many more men we are taking on, because we are still considering that, I can say that we want to take on enough to work the Act efficiently, while at the same time there need be no question of the farmers being harassed.

Mr. Alexander: Are we to take it that these crop inspectors and land commissioners are the people who will report to the Ministry about the applications for the ploughing-up subsidy?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Alexander: Then they will have to visit nearly all these holdings in connection with the ploughing up subsidy?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, in connection with the ploughing-up subsidy But that will be nothing like as much as there is to be done under this Act. At any rate, as far as this is concerned we intend to make it effective, and to take on the necessary number of people. I am sure no hon. Member wants people to be harassed, and there will be no question of that, but I can give an assurance that we shall make this an efficient working proposition.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 191.

Division No. 247.]
AYES.
[7.50 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Dalton, H.
Hayday, A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Adamson, W. M.
Davies:, S. O. (Merthyr)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Alexander, Rt. Hen. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Day, H.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Ammon, C. G.
Dobbie, W.
Isaacs, G. A.


Banfield, J. W.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Barnes, A. J.
Ede, J. C.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Barr, J.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
John, W.


Batey, J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Bevan, A.
Frankel, D.
Kirkwood, D.


Broad, F. A.
Gardner, B. W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Gibson R. (Greenock)
Lawson, J. J.


Burke, W. A.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Leach, W.


Cape, T.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lee, F.


Chater, D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Leonard, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Grenfell, D. R.
Logan, D. G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Lunn, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Collindridge, F.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
McEntee, V. La T.


Cove, W. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McGhee, H. G.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Hardie, Agnes
MacLaren, A.


Daggar, G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Maclean, N.




Marshall, F,
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Thorne, W.


Mathers, G.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Thurtte, E.


Maxton, J.
Ridley, G.
Tinker, J. J.


Messer, F.
Riley, B.
Tomlinson, G.


Montague, F.
Ritson, J.
Viant, S. P.


Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Walkden, A. G.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Watkins, F. C.


Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Shinwell, E.
Watson, W. McL.


Naylor, T. E.
Simpson, F. B.
Welsh, J. C.


Noel-Baker, P. J.
Sloan, A.
Westwood, J.


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Paling, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Parkinson, J. A.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Pearson, A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Stephen, C.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Poole, C. C.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Price, M. P.
Stokes, R. R.



Pritt, D. N.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.ߞ


Quibell, D. J. K.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.




NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Furness, S. N.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Peake, O.


Agnew, Lieut.-Camdr. P. G.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon Sir J.
Petherick, M.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Apsley, Lord
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Aske, Sir R. W.
Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.
Radford, E. A.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Granville, E. L.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gridiey, Sir A. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Beechman, N. A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Bernays, R. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Blair, Sir R.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Remer, J. R.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hambro, A. V.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hannah, I, C.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brass, Sir W.
Harbord, Sir A.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. O. (Newbury)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Cheater)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Salmon, Sir I.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hepworth, J.
Salt, E. W.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Holmes, J. S.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Christie, J. A.
Hopkinson, A.
Sandeman, Sir N. S


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Schuster, Sir G.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hume, Sir G. H.
Scott, Lord William


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hunter, T.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hutchinson, G. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Jennings, R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Snadden, W. McN.


Cooke, J. O. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kellett, Major E. O.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Storey, S.


Cross, R. H.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crossley, A. C.
Kimball, L.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lees-Jones, J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


De la Bère, R.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lewis, O.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Denville, Alfred
Liddall, W. S.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Doland, G. F.
Lindsay, K. M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Donner, P. W.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Locker-Lampion, Comdr. O. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V, G.
Loftus, P. C.
Touthe, G. C.


Drewe, C.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wakefield, W. W.


Duncan, J. A. L.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Dunglass, Lord
McKie, J. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L- (Hull)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Markham, S. F.
Warrender, Sir V.


Ellis, Sir G.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Emery, J. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Moreing, A. C.
Wedderburn. H. J. S.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Slam-bridge)
Wells, Sir Sydney


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
White, H. Graham


Fleming, E. L.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Fox, Sir W. G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel. G.







Womersley, Sir W. J.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.ߞ


Wood, Hon. C. I. C.
York, C.
Mr. Munro and Mr. Grimston.


Wragg, H.

CLAUSE 2. —(Rate of oats subsidy payments).

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Thomas Williams.

Mr. T. Williams: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you are calling the Amendment on Clause 2, page 2, line 37?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Williams: I take it from that that you are not calling the previous two Amendments on Clause I which refer to a committee to deal with the standard price?

Mr. Speaker: No, I am not calling the previous two Amendments.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Williams: I am sorry. We regard those Amendments as fundamental.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, to leave out "fourteen," and to insert "twelve."
The fact that the other two Amendments arc not being called increases enormously the importance of this Amendment. Its purpose is, briefly, to reduce from 14 to 12 the number of times the difference which the higher rate shall be between the market price and the standard price for oats. The right hon. Gentleman can vary the standard price as often as he likes or when he thinks it necessary that there should be some limitation upon the number of times the price can be multiplied. In this Clause, when the average market price of oats falls below 8s. per cwt., the Minister may provide in terms of subsidy 14 times the difference between 8s. and the actual price. That is for the person who has not received during that cereal year a deficiency payment for wheat. It has been said on many occasions that the National Government never know where they stand for two minutes together, and that is absolutely true. We have seen over a period of years that Scottish Minister of Agriculture after Scottish Minister has been brought in and, when one has given as much as he can, he has departed and another Scottish Minister has taken his place and given as much as he can in subsidies, and away he has gone. Finally, we have settled on a Minister who is not a Scotsman. The Act of 1937 guarantees the grower of oats who did not receive a

wheat deficiency payment six times the difference between the market price and the standard price, and the new Minister has fixed on the figure of 14 times instead of six times.
On the Second Reading, and in Committee, we sought from the Minister and from the Secretary of State for Scotland some facts and figures on which they have based their multiple of 14 times. After all, this is a guaranteed price. It is not insurance. No premiums are paid. It is a subsidy and, as far as I know, up to the moment no one outside the Ministry knows on what this multiple of 14 times is based. We know, however, that during the cereal year 1938 the price of oats and barley fell to a very small figure. Threats were made in certain by-elections that something would happen unless the Government took a step forward. This is one of the steps forward that the Government took. They have told us nothing about the cost of production of oats or the variations, county by county, and perhaps field by field. All we know is this. When the Minister had to go to the Treasury to justify this subsidy he certainly had to make some submissions to the Treasury to get the £ 2,000,000 per annum. We are entitled to know exactly what those calculations were. There are certain parts of the country where to grow a cwt. of oats may cost 4s. 5s. or 6s. while in other areas it may cost 10s. 12s. or 14s. We know that what pays the man whom it costs 10s. or 12s. leaves the fellow on land where it costs only 4s., 5s. or 6s. a very considerable profit indeed.
For the last nine years the average price for oats has been round about 6s. 10d. per cwt. Under the terms of this Clause if oats were to fall to the unprecedentedly low level of 4s. 8d. per cwt. this guarantee provides not only the average for the past nine years, but it provides, approximately, 14 per cent. more than the average price for the last nine years. It may be that the Minister or the Under-Secretary for Scotland can justify it. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), when he wanted to justify it, went back to the dark ages and produced an argument based on the figures of the dim and distant past. If my Amendment were carried, and the


unprecedentedly low level of 4s. 8d. were the average price, we should still be guaranteeing the oatsproducer something more than the average for the past nine years. I do not think that is ungenerous. Oats is one of those peculiar crops where, in England or Wales, only 15 per cent, is sold off the farm, the remainder being consumed on the farm. There is no average price for that; in fact, there is no price at all. It is a curious situation that we are guaranteeing a price for a commodity which is never sold.
It is true that in Scotland a very different story can be told. There some 45 per cent, of the oats grown is a cash crop. In England and Wales we may have 2,000,000 odd acres under oats. The Minister ascertains that in this or that market the 15 per cent, surplus to the farm's requirements fetches a certain price. No control is exercised over the farmer. He sells it just how he likes to whom he likes, and he does not worry. He certainly need not worry in future, because he will know full well that, whatever the price may be on the ordinary market, the Treasury is going to make it up. The merchant knowing that it does not matter to the farmer whether he pays him 6s or 7s. per cwt., and knowing also that when he resells it is going to be some other farmer or poultry keeper, all kinds of collusion are possible. I am not arguing against a subsidy as such. It may be that the Minister can justify the subsidy in England and Wales, and it may be that the Under-Secretary can justify it in Scotland, because there is a subsidy for wheat growers in England, but I am not sure that on the basis of pure economics it is possible to justify this particular subsidy for oat growers even in Scotland. In any case, we are convinced that this multiple of 14 times is too generous. Control is too weak, and Parliament is being asked to do something for which we have had no solid justification In terms of mathematical calculation, and for which no real justification has been offered at all. On the Second Reading I put a question to the. Secretary of State for Scotland and I repeated it in Committee, but we got no real information. This is what I said:
 The average price for the past nine years has been 6s. rod. per cwt. The guaranteed price under the terms of the Bill is approximately 7s. 9d. per cwt. even if the price fell to 4s. 8d. per cwt. That is in cases

where no wheat subsidy is claimed by that grower. In the lower cases, where wheat subsidy is also paid, the guaranteed price is approximately 6s. Id. Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ask his colleague, when he replies to-night, to give the House some information as to the calculations of the guaranteed 7s. 9d. per cwt. for oats? "— OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1939; col. 1595, Vol. 348.]
The Secretary of State replied, but not one word did he utter concerning those calculations. We, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to-day to give us the A.B.C. of their calculations and the real basis of this multiple of 14 times as against the six in the 1937 Act. If they will do that, it may change our attitude even towards this Amendment, but as long as my Amendment guarantees the oats producer a price in excess of the average price for the past nine years, I am willing, and I hope my hon. Friends will vote with me, to reduce this 14 to 12. The thing that I am after most, however, is for the Minister to tell us exactly what they told the Treasury when they went to get this subsidy, this political bribe for farmers in Norfolk and Scotland, this movement which is making the rural part of the country safe for the Conservative party.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: I regard these proposals as the most vulnerable section of the Bill, not merely from our point of view, but from the ultimate point of view of farming, because it is quite clear that, unless we are able to justify up to the hilt the amounts being paid out to oats growers, we may find the whole thing swept away, as the Bill puts it, by the consent of the Treasury, because it cannot stand justifiably on an economic basis. There is some sort of marketing scheme in the Bill with regard to barley, but oats in this Bill are tied up with the payment to wheat. Wheat is protected to some extent by the Standard Price Committee and that will be an enormous buttress presently in support of the wheat side of farming when the critical time comes, but with regard to oats we are being generous to a crop which as my hon. Friend indicates, to the extent of 85 per cent, in England and Wales is consumed at home.
Whatever the reasons for fixing 14 as denoting the average quantity of oats produced per acre, it is less than the


average, and presumably it is less than the average in order to make some allowance for cost of administration and for seeding uses of certain classes of oats and so on, but there is no allowance in this quota for the fact that oats are mainly consumed at home as a substitute for feeding stuffs that might otherwise be bought. There should have been some allowance, in something like the proportion of 12 as to 14 as contained in the Amendment, in order to put the justification for this assistance to oats on as firm a footing as possible to face public opinion presently, and to face the Exchequer and Treasury pressure a little later on. We are not moving this Amendment in a frivolous spirit or because we want to see that agriculture receives less than that to which it is entitled, but in order that the assistance may be on a sounder basis for justification in any kind of circumstances. It is very difficult, even discounting 14 as to 12, to justify, even before farmers, the paying of Is. above the average price for the last nine years in respect of a crop that is facing a contracting market all the time.
Here is a crop of which the farmers themselves are relinquishing the use. They are preferring tractors to horses, and tractors do not consume oats. The farmers themselves are doing that, and not any outside interests. Again, the farmers themselves are buying feeding-stuffs, such as compound cakes and milling offals, to feed cows and bullocks, instead of using home-grown oats. They have economic justification for that, but here is a crop on the use of which the farmers themselves are putting alimit, and yet we are deliberately exaggerating the financial assistance to this industry. It would be wiser on the part of the Minister to put his assistance to oats in particular on a footing which can be justifiably argued at any time or in anycircumstances, and not in the flush of the moment, when he may be anticipating an electoral appeal to interested areas. Surely the Minister has not missed the significance of the fact that even on this side Members are susceptible to constituency influence on a question of this kind.
The House as a whole is considering this matter, and, while Members may be in a difficulty in expressing their real mind about oats as a crop which should

be assisted to the extent that barley or beef or milk or any such product is assisted, yet it is the fact that Members are at this moment disposed not to be unduly critical of the assistance that is being offered to their constituents. But the time may come when they may have to explain how it was that the Treasury took it just as easily away, because they had not established an economic justification for this assistance but have been over-generous with respect to a crop that cannot even sustain its own support in a market that is not affected by imports. It is affected by the farmers' own use of the crop, and therefore the Minister would be advised to realise that he may have to come back at some future time and remind Members, when he is under the pressures that will come upon him, that he did his best to put it on a footing which would enable it to stand in good times and in bad against pressures from one quarter or the other. As it is now he will lose the whole lot because he goes too far. Farmers themselves, if the assistance is over generous, will not only not buy oats, but will extend the cropping of them. If you give them more than they can economically cope with, they will begin to extend their acreage, and you will embarrass the position further. It will be impossible for the Minister to come to this House again for any more assistance for oat growers. He has reached the limit in this Measure, and he will be wise to hold his hand.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Before my right hon. Friend replies I would like to say a few words from the point of view of the Scottish oat grower, who has been referred to by both hon. Members opposite. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) has asked whether there is any economic justification for this basing of the oat subsidy on 14 cwts. per acre? He knows as well as I do that the average yield of oats in the United Kingdom has been found to be 16 cwts. per acre. From that total, 2 cwts. per acre have been deducted in respect of seed and waste, which is a figure which has been found in practice to be the amount which is used for seed and which is waste. That is how I imagine the 14 cwts. per acre has been arrived at. Therefore, where you have an oat grower who is not taking the benefit of the wheat quota payment, he is in fact getting help upon practically the whole of


his yield. Both the hon. Member for Doncaster and the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) made again the case which they have made so often and so ably upstairs in Committee, that we are guaranteeing to the farmers a figure in excess of the average yield for the last nine years. But supposing we had only guaranteed these farmers the average of the last nine years, what would have happened? What has been happening during the past nine years in Scotland? They know as well as I do that land which had been under the plough has been going down to grass and to rough grazing, that men were going out of employment, and that agriculture was declining.
The whole point of this assistance, which is so much welcomed in parts of England and Wales, and definitely welcomed in Scotland, is that it makes, or seeks to make, mixed farming profitable. From these Benches the need for cereal parity has often been urged. It has been pointed out time and time again that the Englishman in respect of his wheat has been receiving adequate assistance, based on a price of 10s. a cwt. We are not getting that for our oats. We are getting assistance based on 8s. per cwt. Therefore, we are not to that extent getting the cereal parity for which we have asked. We are getting some help which will enable the farmers of certain parts of Scotland to bring back land under cultivation, to keep the plough going and to go on with those systems of mixed farming which have made our agricultural counties great in the days gone by.

8.26 p.m.

Sir R. Acland: I support the Amendment. The Government at one election after another promised that they were going to bring prosperity to the farmers by one means or another, but really nothing was done to help agriculture until there came the revolt, to which reference has been made. That revolt brought with it the prospect of the loss of seats for the Government, with the result that it achieved what promises had failed to achieve, in that it made money available for agriculture. We on these Benches voted for the principle, which I suppose 99 farmers out of every 100 rightly expressed in their own language, that something ought to be done for agriculture. I voted for this Amendment in Committee

and I propose to repeat my vote to-night, if the question is taken to a Division, in spite of the fact that if the Amendment were carried it would reduce the amount of money made available to agriculture. I have already received a complaint in writing from my constituency for having voted, as it is said in the complaint, against oats. Therefore, I think I shall be justified in repeating the reasons why I gave that vote on the Committee stage, because I propose to stand my ground, in spite of criticism.
I do not think the Minister of Agriculture realises what an extraordinarily lucky individual he is. I mean that, because other Ministers have not been able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so much for agriculture from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's point of view. Ministers of Agriculture in the future may have the greatest difficulty in persuading Chancellors of the Exchequer to do even what is being done now. That being so, I cannot help thinking over and over again, as we deal with the successive stages of this Bill, what a tragedy it is at this moment, when money is forthcoming for agriculture, that the money is being spent in this particular way. It reminds me of a passage from the Bible, which I am afraid I shall only be able to quote inaccurately. However, I think it is a very well-known passage and most hon. Members will recognise it and recall the real beauty of the words, no matter how stumbling may be my paraphrase:
 The dove that cleaveth the air with her swift pinions, but when she has passed, the air closeth up again and no trace of her passing can be found.
The passage goes on to refer to
 an arrow shot at a mark when the air closes after it has passed through, and nothing of its passing can afterwards be found.
The money that is being spent is, of course, very much welcomed by those who will receive it, and one cannot but express approval of the fact that they will be receiving it; but it is regrettable that this money, found by the taxpayer, through the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to be spent in such a way. What trace of its passing will be found upon the whole surface of British agriculture in ten, five or even two years from now? None. We may perhaps find some trace in rents being a little higher


or, at any rate, a little higher than they would otherwise have been. In other ways that one could think of this money could have been used constructively for the benefit of agriculture; these millions of pounds that the Minister has succeeded in extracting from the Exchequer. There surely must have been in the Ministry of Agriculture among the permanent officials better plans than these for spending this money on agriculture.
In the Committee stage I put down an Amendment for the spending of the money in another way. I suggested that the money might be spent in disindebting the industry. We all know how grievously the industry as a whole is burdened by debts to all kinds of people; debts carrying very high rates of interest, debts carrying interest called Is. per ton per month, which may work out at 20 per cent, a year. These debts not only carry a high rate of interest but they restrict the farmers in the sources from which they can purchase raw materials, so that even when other sources are available, such as co-operative methods among fanners — one would have thought that such methods would have received some encouragement in a Bill entitled the Agricultural Development Bill— the farmers cannot avail themselves of those cheaper sources of supply, burdened with debt as they are, because if they do so, even for a small purchase, they are faced with a demand for the payment of the whole of their debt, which they cannot meet. Money spent on paying off debts bearing a high rate of interest and taking them over at a lower rate, thereby freeing the farmer and enabling him to make his purchases where he can best do so, would have a great effect on the bank balance of the farmers, even in 1939. Not only that, but had my suggestion been carried out it would have left a permanent mark on the structure of agriculture as a whole. I shall support the Amendment for the reasons I have given, because I think the money could have been spent in so many other ways that would have been more permanently useful to the industry.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: The Amendment proposes to reduce the number of cwts. in respect of which the guaranteed price is given, from 14 per acre to 12 per acre. The hon. Member for Don Valley

(Mr. T. Williams) has introduced the question of why the figure of 8s. for each cwt. has been chosen. I will try to answer both these questions. There was one point in his remarks which I did not quite understand. He said that whatever price the farmer may get for his oats the Exchequer will make up the difference between it and the standard price so that he need not bother to get the best price himself for his oats in the market. That is not really the case. He is paid on an acreage basis, on the difference between the average price for the whole country and the standard price, and he still has a great inducement to get the best price for his oats, for if he sells above the average price he will, of course, gain both ways. The hon. Member quoted from his Second Reading speech and he said that the question he had put had not been answered. He pointed out that the guaranteed price under the terms of the Bill was approximately 7s. 9d. per cwt., and he asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give the House some information as to the calculation of the guaranteed price of 7s. 9d. per cwt. on oats.
I think there is a slight misunderstanding about the figure of 7s. 9d.; the figure is 8s. The margin of 3d. does not mean that he will only get a guarantee up to 7s. 9d.; it means that no payment is made unless the price is below 7s. 9d. If the price is 7s. 8d., then he will get 4d. in order to make it up to the 8s. The reason for choosing the figure of 8s., which was fixed in the 1937 Act, is the relationship, which experience has generally shown to be more or less preserved over long numbers of years, between the price of wheat and the price of oats. Under the Corn Production Act, 1921, the price of wheat was guaranteed at something between us. and 12s., when the price of oats was 2s. lower. Since that Act has been repealed the actual price of oats over a number of years has generally been about 2s. per cwt. below the price of wheat, and in fixing the figure of 8s. we had principally in mind the relationship between these two cereal crops.
The hon. Member asked why we had put the figure so high above the average price for the last nine years. That, of course, is a point which is frequently made when we are discussing this subject, but the fact is that the last nine years


in particular, with one exception, have been years of depression. It was in 1930 that the slump took place, and since 1930 there has been only one year, 1937, in which a slight temporary recovery took place. But if we go back to the years before 1930, in 1924, which was not a year of greatly inflated prices, the price of oats was 10s. per cwt. in 1925, 9s. 8d. in 1926, 8s. 5d.; in 1927, 9s. ad.; in 1928, 9s. 6d.; and in the following year, 1929, 8s. 2d. In all of those years, if this Bill had been in operation, no subsidy payment would have fallen to be made at all. There is one other consideration which arises from our experience of the 1937 Act. From 1930 the oat aoreage had been declining, but after 1937, when the price naturally rose to over 8s., the acreage increased by 100,000, which seems to indicate that the price of 8s. is the price which will achieve our object, to get a certain increase in the oat acreage.
The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) expressed the fear that the increase in the oat acreage might be excessive, and that later on it might lead to the Treasury and public opinion demanding a cessation of these payments, and thus the tragedy of the Corn Production Act would be repeated. We have sought to provide against an excessive extension by the proposals in Clause 2 (2), where what is colloquially called the "ceiling" is put at 1,470,000 acres to qualify for the higher rate of subsidy which is earned by people who are registered oat growers, and 1,030,000 acres in the case of those who are registered wheat growers. If the acreage rises above that ceiling the subsidies payable are proportionately reduced.
The other question which the hon. Member asked, and to which he said he had not got an answer, was the reason for taking 14 as a multiple of wheat acreage. The hon. Member for Kincardine and West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) gave the hon. Member the answer in his speech. The average production per acre being about 16 cwts. an acre, 2 cwts. have been deducted to allow for seed and waste, thus producing the figure of 14. The hon. Member for Don Valley pointed out that we thought 6 cwts. were sufficient in 1937, and he also referred to the fact that there had been a long succession of Ministers of Agriculture

each one of whom got more and more out of the Exchequer, but that none of them had got enough to remove the real grievances of the Scottish oat grower.
In 1937 the idea was, taking the country as a whole, that 6 cwts. an acre was a fair amount to be sold as a cash crop, and the subsidy, or the guaranteed price, was calculated, therefore, on that basis, but events since then have proved that this was unjust to the farmer who does depend mainly on oats for his cash crop, and puts him in an unfair position as compared with the grower of wheat. The proposals in the Bill will, I think, rectify that injustice, and I venture to affirm that we shall see in the next few years an increase in the quantity of land which is put under the plough, and I hope, also, a check on the decline in the agricultural population in these areas.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Price: Three main points have been raised on this Amendment, and I think two of them have been satisfactorily answered by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. First of all, the point was made in connection with marketing, that there would be no incentive to get a better price owing to the absence of a marketing scheme. That was satisfactorily answered. The Under-Secretary of State said that would not be the case, and that, in fact, it would be open to any producer of oats to try to get the best price he could. I think the hon. Gentleman has also shown reasonably that a standard price of 8s. is not unjust. My own experience and figures which I have seen from various sources, with regard to the cost of the production of oats, suggest that on an average, taking different seasons and the soils in different areas, the cost of production of oats is, if anything, more than 8s. a cwt. Therefore, if there is to be a subsidy at all, I do not think it would be reasonable to have a lower figure.
The Minister did not answer the third objection as to why the figure of 14 was inserted, and I think my hon. Friends are right in pressing the Amendment on that ground alone. It is true that 2 cwts. are to be deducted for seed, wastage and so on. I think more than that should be deducted, because in England far and away the larger proportion of oats is consumed on the farm. It seems to have been argued that we might even go up to


6 cwts., which was the figure in the 1937 Act, but that I think would be unfair to Scotland. I think the figure 12 would be a very reasonable one to insert. After all, oats is mainly a crop for consumption on the farm. I am a great believer in oats. I do not believe it is desirable to feed cattle too much on imported cakes, and I believe that oats and beans is the very best feeding stuff for dairy cows. Therefore, in considering the problem, one ought to bear in mind that oats is a feeding crop consumed on the farm, and one ought to make allowances for that. Consequently, I think that 12 cwt., as suggested in the Amendment, is very reasonable.

8.48 p.m.

Captain Heilgers: There is one point that was made by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to which I wish to refer. He said that the oat growers of Scotland were in an unfair position in comparison with the growers of wheat, and that that would be rectified by the provisions in this Bill. He went on to say that, roughly, the figure of 8s. for oats was a reasonable one when compared with the figure of 10s. for wheat. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that is not a fair comparison. There are 12 stones in a sack of oats and 18 stones in a sack of wheat. If one takes the figure of 8s. for oats, it amounts to 8d. a stone, but to get 8d. a stone for wheat, one would have to raise the price of wheat not to 10s. cwt. but to 12s. cwt. I thank my hon. Friend very much for his argument. I am a wheat grower, principally interested in wheat, and the Wheat Committee is about to consider the whole situation, and on my hon. Friend's argument, they should put up the guaranteed price of wheat to 12s. a cwt.

Mr. J. Morgan: What about the output of wheat per acre as compared with oats?

Captain Heilgers: I admit that one is more likely to get ten sacks of oats and eight of wheat. There is one other point I would like to make, and it has reference to the speech of the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price). He was arguing, quite rightly, that oats are a principal feeding stuff. Not a great quantity of oats is sold off the farm, but at the present time, every one in this country is alarmed at the possibility of a war, and it is very necessary for us to grow at home as many feeding stuffs as

we can. As the hon. Member said, there is no better feeding stuff than oats for cows and other animals. Therefore, if there is a slightly higher subsidy for oats, as is proposed on a 14 cwt. basis, rather than on a 12 cwt. basis, we shall do a great deal to help to provide more feeding stuffs for animals, which is most essential at the present time, in view of a possible emergency.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: There is an old saying that "when thieves fall out, honest men come into their own." Although I do not want to label the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) as thieves, I would suggest that the Treasury is handing out money with an open hand, which is perhaps not quite the same thing; but at any rate it is some encouragement to see these two hon. Members of the Conservative party in disagreement on this matter. I became a little apprehensive when the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds talked about using the argument which the Secretary of State made with regard to oats as a justification for a higher rate of subsidy for wheat. I have looked up the price of wheat on the world market and in most cases it does not reach 18s. a quarter. Already we give a guarantee to the British farmer of 45s., so that at the present time the subsidy must work out at one-and-a-half times the world price of wheat. If the hon. and gallant Member now wants 12s. a cwt. instead of 10s. a cwt., it will put on another 9s. or 10s. subsidy, and will make the subsidy more than twice as much again as the world price at the present time.

Captain Heilgers: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? We have just been discussing the question of giving higher wages to agricultural workers. We are all in sympathy with that. If we are to do that—

Mr. Pritt: You are not.

Captain Heilgers: — the farmers must have the means of paying the increased wages. We very much hope that the result of this Bill will be that wages committees, in whose hands the matter will rest, will see fit to give an increase to the agricultural workers if more is put into the hands of the farmers so that they can pay the increased wages.

Mr. J. Morgan: The Minister did not say that. If he had said that, it might have helped matters.

Captain Heilgers: The Minister gave a very strong indication to that effect.

Mr. Alexander: I appreciate the hon. and gallant Member's interruption, but I am much more interested in the remark that he made in his speech. He said that he is a wheat farmer and that he is interested in the possibility of getting an increase from 10s. to 12s. Over and over again, hon. Members opposite are perfectly frank and say whom they represent and what they want. There they are, standing at the door of the Treasury. I feel that, as we work under some difficulties on the Report stage because of the selection of Amendments, this is an appropriate place to say that there is in this Clause an example of how ridiculous is this method of paying a subsidy. In the 1937 Act, the payment was fixed at six times the difference, and now it is 14 times the difference. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has argued that this is really necessary in order to give justice to Scotland, not because Scotland cannot afford to produce oats on the basis of six times the difference, as in 1937, but because thereby they will not get as much monetary grant as the English producers under the wheat subsidy.

Mr. Snadden: That was because the wheat farmer was protected with his 45s. deficiency payment, and we were not. As long as you retain the deficiency payment on wheat, you must protect oats, or the oats farmer will go to the wall.

Mr. Alexander: Is the argument then, that because wheat was cheaper on the world market, the users of cereal feeding-stuffs used more wheat than usual and less oats than usual?

Mr. Snadden: Not necessarily.

Mr. Alexander: I like hon. Members who want to teach me on these matters to be more explicit.

Mr. Snadden: My argument is that wheat was being protected by a deficiency payment of 45s., and naturally the wheat farmer coming to the market protected in that way, would take any price at all for his wheat. This, of course, brought down the price of oats. As we have no

imports of oats, there is no reason for the collapse in oats prices, that I can think of, except that fact.

Mr. Alexander: There is a passage in "The Lady of the Lake" in which Fitzjames says:
 I thank thee Roderick for the word.
I must thank the hon. Member for having given us the words to describe what we have always claimed to be the case, namely, that the method of subsidising wheat in fact means that the wheat is carried to the market in sucha way that it helps to crash the world price. I suppose if that is true in respect of wheat, the fact that you are now going to apply such a high subsidy, based upon 14 times the difference, in the case of oats, means that you will have the same thing in respect of that 45 per cent, of the Scottish crop which is a cash crop, and that the price of oats will crash in exactly the same way. But the fact is that this subsidy is in no way related to the actual cost of the production of oats. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on the Second Reading and in Committee and again to-night has asked for figures to show what economic basis there is for this formula. We are still without an answer. My hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) feels satisfied on two out of the three points that have been made in objection to this proposal. I am not as easily satisfied on agricultural formulas as my hon. Friend. He has more experience than I have of agriculture, but even he, with all his experience, is not fully satisfied. I listened to my hon. Friend in the Second Reading Debate giving an interesting discourse on the variety of production costs throughout the country in the case of oats. That statement came from him with all the authority of experience, and I think he said that it was possible to produce, in many parts of the country and with certain varieties of climate, as much as 1 cwt. for 4s.

Mr. Price: And in some cases for over 20s.

Mr. Alexander: I imagine that my hon. Friend with his experience would agree that the people who grew oats at over 20s. ought to come under Clause 4 of the Bill, in regard to the growing of oats on unsuitable land.

Mr. Price: It might be avery bad season.

Mr. Alexander: Then they might have special consideration. But do not let us make any mistake about it. This is part of the purchase price of the votes of the agricultural constituencies.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: What about your guaranteed price?

Mr. Alexander: As to our guaranteed price, we should certainly have a basis of efficiency and justice in it, and that is what we have been unable to put into this Bill because of the opposition of the Minister. If the Minister proposes to take that line, let me bring him back again to the declaration of his own party in the past. It was mentioned in Committee, but I think it ought to be put on record in connection with the Report stage of the Bill. The White Paper on agriculture issued by the Conservative Government which was in office in 1926 — the Baldwin White Paper on agricultural policy— contained these words:
 Any general scheme of subsidies for agriculture is open to the gravest objection. They would have to be unlimited in duration and very large in amount to have any material effect in increasing the arable area or the number of workers employed, and in view of the extreme variation all over the country in the quality or productive capacity of land, it is impossible to devise any scheme of subsidies which will not result in the payment of bonus to farmers who do not need it and for which no return will be received by the nation.

Mr. Quibell: Which we did not believe.

Mr. Alexander: We believed it, but apparently the Government do not believe it, or else they feel that they cannot get all the votes they require in any other way. The variety of production conditions throughout the country makes it certain that the fixing of the high ratio of 14 times the difference will enable not only farmers, but landowners in many parts of the country to get away with public money which they ought not to receive. If, at the same time, the Government were to guarantee a minimum wage to the labourer, because public money is being paid out in this way, it might be some mitigation of the offence. But the Minister has not even had the good will to do that. He says he has every sympathy with the farm worker, but he goes on steadily voting money to the farmers and through the farmers to the landlords without making any provision for the workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley has now, for the third time, sought to extract from the Government a statement of the real economic basis of their formula for the oats subsidy. He has had no effective answer, and I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will go with me into the Lobby in favour of the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 132.

Division No. 248.]
AYES.
[9.4 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Fleming, E. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. C.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammarsmith, S.)
Furness, S. N.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Cooper. Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Craven-Ellis, W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hun. Sir J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Goldie, N. B.


Beechman, N. A.
Cross, R. H.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Bernays, R. H.
Crossley, A. C.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Blair, Sir R.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.


Boothby, R, J. G.
Davidson, Viscountess
Granville, E. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Da la Bère, R.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Danville, Alfred
Grimston, R. V.


Brass, Sir W.
Doland, G. F.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Donner, P. W.
Guest, May. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Hambro, A. V.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C, (Newbury)
Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
Hannah, I. C.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Drewe, C.
Hannon. Sir P. J. H.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Harbord, Sir A.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Cazalet, Thelma. (Islington, E.)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Ellis, Sir G.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Christie, J. A.
Emery, J. F.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Hepworth, J.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.


Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Holmes, J. S.




Horsbrugh, Florence
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Storey, S.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R, S. (Southport)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hunter, T.
Munro, P.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hutchinson, G. C.
Peaks, O.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M F.


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Sutcliffe, H.


Jennings, R.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Petherick, M.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Kellett, Major E. O.
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Radford, E. A.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Kimball, L.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Touche, G. C.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Read, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Turton, R. H.


Lennox-Boyd, A, T. L.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Wakefield, W. W.


Lewis, O.
Remer, J. R.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Liddall, W. S.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lindsay, K. M.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Little, Sir E. Graham-
Rosbotham, Sir T.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Rowlands, G.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Loftus, P. C.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


M'Connell, Sir J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wells, Sir Sydney


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Salt, E. W.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Schuster, Sir G. E.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Markham, S. F.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wragg, H.


Marsden, Commandser A.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
York, C.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Snadden, W. McN.



Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Moreing, A. C.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Major Sir James Edmondson and Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.


Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)






NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths. G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Groves, T. E.
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pearson, A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Hardie, Agnes
Poole, C. C.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Price, M. P.


Banfield, J. W.
Harvey, T, E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pritt, D. N.


Barnes, A. J.
Hayday, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Bevan, A.
Isaacs, G. A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silkin, L.


Burke, W. A.
John, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Cape. T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sloan, A.


Chater, D.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collindridge, F.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lawson, J. J.
Stokes, R. R.


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dalton, H.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tomlinson, G.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
White, H. Graham


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Windsor, W.(Hull, C.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.sss

CLAUSE 15. — (Further provisions relating to barley schemes.)

9.13 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I beg to move, in page 15, line 27, to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert:
 (a) for securing that certificates of sale shall be issued only in proper cases and that the particulars stated in such certificates shall be truly and accurately stated, and, for that purpose, for securing that particular functions relating to the issue of such certificates shall be exerciseable only by persons duly authorised in that behalf under the scheme.
During the proceedings in the Standing Committee I indicated that certain representations had been made to me by the trading interests concerned that the provisions in paragraph (a) of Clause 15 were not satisfactory and might give rise to certain difficulties in the administration of a barley scheme. The main object of paragraph (a) of this Clause is to enable a barley scheme to contain provisions for securing that the buyers of home-grown barley who will have to act as agents of the Minister in the issue of the certificates of sale for which provision is made in Clause 12 (1, d) are fit and proper people to discharge that function. On giving further consideration to the question, it seems to me to be preferable to follow the practice adopted under the Wheat Act, where the merchants who issue wheat certificates do so under an authority issued by the Wheat Commission, instead of by requiring such persons to take out a licence and providing, as the Clause at present does, that only persons holding a licence should buy home-grown barley from a grower.

Mr. Charles Brown: Who are the trading interests to whom the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: All the people concerned in the barley industry. Just the same as the Wheat Commission has to deal with a number of interests within the wheat industry, so there will be various interests, merchants, brewers, and so on, in the barley scheme. Our idea is to get a workable scheme which will function. Therefore, we propose that the procedure should be for the authorisation of these people along the same lines as those which have worked well on the Wheat Commission, and not as we originally drafted the scheme.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: Here is a case where people who are interested in getting hold of a proper article are making very sure that only certificated goods are to get the benefit of this scheme. We have been loose in regard to who shall get the oatssubsidy, because no certificate on the same lines will be required in that case. They will be regarded as. proper cases so long as they can make a. declaration that they have grown oats, even though they have not been visited. Here the brewers and distillers— because they are the trading interests; it is not the baby food merchants here— are insisting upon the insertion of certain guaranteesthat they as buyers and users of this barely shall not be '' had '' and that the barley they want is duly produced. I feel that this is a reflection on the Minister's attitude towards growers of other commodities in which the public purse only is concerned. Here, when the brewers say they must have protection, they can bring such pressure on the Minister as to secure that only certificated barley shall get the assistance.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would point out that the Treasury are also concerned in this, because we have to get a certificate that it is either barley destined for an industrial purpose or barley not destined for an industrial purpose. Therefore, what I have to do is to see that the people who give these certificates are the right people for the work.

Mr. Morgan: But the Minister did not represent it in that way. He said that certain trading interests had required the insertion of this particular paragraph. The Treasury are just as much interested in oats and other commodities, but the same process is not adopted there. It is clear that the Minister's first representation is the correct one, and that certain interests have required that this should be done to protect their position in the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 41, leave out "for such a licence or." — [Sir R. Dorman-Smith.]

CLAUSE 17 — (Legal proceedings in connection with barley schemes.)

Amendment made: In page 19, line I, leave out Sub-section (4) — [Sir R Dorman-Smith.]

CLAUSE 21. — (Fat sheep subsidy payments.)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. ALEXANDER:

In page 21, line 16, after "payments," insert
 (not exceeding nine hundred thousand pounds in any year).

In page 22, line 8, at end, insert:
 Provided that the average market price shall be ascertained at dead meat centres.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I should like to ask the advice of the Chair as to the course of the discussion. It has been suggested to me that probably the first of these two Amendments may be called, and it is my view that the objective of the two Amendments is very much the same, and it would satisfy the Opposition if we had a general discussion upon our objective on the first Amendment and were then permitted to divide on both of them.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I am afraid that I cannot help the right hon. Gentleman very much. This is a matter upon which Mr. Speaker has given instructions, and the instructions were that he has selected the first of the Amendments and not the second. I am afraid that I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. Alexander: I know that the selection of Amendments rests with the Chair, and that we have no redress, but the Amendment to provide that the average market price is to be ascertained at dead meat centres is of fundamental importance, and although it is argued by some people that it is not within the terms of the Money Resolution, I should like to put it on record that it is stated that the subsidy shall be an amount per pound of the standard weight as determined by' this Bill and it is for us, before the Bill leaves the House, to determine what the standard weight should be, and whether it should be arrived at by live weight or at dead meat centres. Therefore, I do not understand how it should be ruled out as not being within the terms of the Money Resolution.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not say that it was ruled out. I said that my instructions from Mr. Speaker were that he had not selected it.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, in page 21, line 16, after "payments" to insert:
(not exceeding nine hundred thousand pounds in any year).
The decision which has been given puts the House in a rather difficult position, I submit, but I know that I have no redress, because Mr. Speaker selects Amendments on the Report stage of a Bill, and all that I can do is to bring the matter to the attention of the House. If Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair perhaps we may get an opportunity to argue the matter later.
As to the Amendment I am now moving, although I am moving it in a limited sense, I have in mind the fact that there is so much uncertainty about the amount of money provided by this subsidy that already different sections of farmers, and notably the Scottish section of sheep farmers, are entirely dissatisfied with the formula set out in the Bill. We have had no indication from the Government as to what figures they took as their basis when informing the House in the Financial Memorandum to the original Bill that the full cost of sheep in the first year, owing to the present bad conditions, would be £ 2,250,000, and that over the average of a number of years past the cost would be about £ 900,000 per annum. Whilst I cannot give details of drafts of schemes which I may have seen in some other capacity than that of a Member of the House of Commons, I can say that it does appear to be rather curious that the Minister could bring to the House earlier an estimate of what the cost would be, although up to that time he had not had any consultations with the Livestock Commission, who are now to be given the task of drafting for him, or advising him upon— I do not know which— the actual scheme for operating this sheep subsidy.
I can also say that I do know that the formula to be followed in the different categories of fat sheep and lambs available for subsidy has at least been changed from time to time, and there is considerable dubiety in the minds of those who are connected with the industry as to how it is exactly going to work. It seems to me, however, that we ought to know, first of all, how the £ 900,000 was arrived at. I was then going, if I had had the opportunity of moving my second Amendment, to try and get some solidity into the formula by having it put into the Act


itself that the subsidy should only be paid on actual, ascertained market prices, that is, by taking the average market price at dead meat centres.
I want to put one or two general considerations. Sub-section (3) of this Clause says:
 The amount which may be paid by way of fat sheep subsidy payment in respect of any sheep shall be an amount, for each pound of the standard weight of fat sheep of the description to which the sheep belongs, equal to the amount by which the average market price for the month in which the sheep was examined for certification as aforesaid was less than the standard price for that month.
I think it is fairly clear, if one takes that formula and follows it up with the details in Part I and Part II of the Second Schedule of the Bill, that the intention under that Sub-section is to have an average market price fixed by the Minister, for the purpose of the administration of the subsidy, on a report by his market reporters who attend livestock market centres. I am not, of course, arguing that where a total national flock of sheep amounting to 27,000,000 or 28,000,000 head is involved under this Bill and a very considerable proportion of them come into the market for slaughter every year, it would be possible to work the subsidy formula on the basis of an individual examination of any sheep. I think that would be almost impossible to work. But the way it is going to work, is that you will have a market report from time to time as to how many sheep in a given sale would come under the head of light weights and how many under heavy weights, and stating what would be the estimated bare carcase weight of the sheep sold at that market.
I should say, judging from opinions I have had given to me, both from English and from Scottish farmers, that there is a great difference of opinion arising from time to time as to whether the market reports— very often broadcast on the wireless news— are, in fact, a fair representation of what the prices are in the market, and as to whether they are sometimes more favourable and sometimes less favourable to the producers' point of view. Certainly I have heard the view expressed by some Scottish farmers, in connection with this subsidy, that the Minister has really either been deceived or has deceived himself tremendously about the effect of this subsidy. They grant him the perfectly good intention of having a

subsidy to bring the standard price obtainable by the sheep farmer up to 10d. per pound bare carcase weight, but, in fact, when one allows for the way in which this formula is likely to be administered, most of those farmers fear that they would probably get very little more than8 ½ d. per pound for the bare carcase weight, if as much, on that formula. Therefore, the trouble with the farmers I have met is that they already regard this sheep subsidy as a pure fraud, as a thing not likely to give them any actual benefit at all.
I believe— and I am trying to state the case objectively— there are those who say, "Well if you are going to have two classes of sheep, light and heavy, there is the other side of it, that you cannot examine each sheep, you will have to put certain weights into lightweights and certain weights into heavyweights, and in the case of some of these sheep the subsidy may amount to as much as 2d. a pound, even in the same category, while with a lightweight sheep you might get the subsidy on a perfectly good fat sheep as low as a penny per pound." So fanners who have given special attention to providing the right kind of light fat sheep for the market would actually get much less for their extra work per pound than one who had not put himself out at all, because under Sub-section (3) they will get a sort of general average. That seems to me to be all wrong.
Whilst I am no lover of subsidies at all, when you come actually to begin to distribute a subsidy on livestock of this kind, it seems to me you ought to get as near as possible to the facts. Now in the case of the cattle subsidy there is the most specific provision made under the certificate of the individual examination. Of course there is a very much smaller number of beasts to be dealt with than there would be in the case of sheep, and, therefore, I recognise that it would be impossible to follow the same formula as you have in the inspection and certification of fat cattle; but in the case of sheep I am convinced myself— and that is why I felt it was so vital for the second Amendment to be called—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With regard to the second Amendment I have been listening very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said and it may have a bearing on whether what he is going to


say is relevant to this Amendment. He has just been at pains to make it very clear that the effect of his next Amendment would be to increase the subsidies by his method of arriving at the average price and that he cannot do on the Report stage. Therefore, I have to watch what he is saying now.

Mr. Alexander: I fear my words may not have given you the right impression. In fact, I quite see that you would take that view if what I have said about the Scottish farmers position was all that I had to say about it. But my case is not that it would be a general increase all round, but that we should get the actual market prices rather than estimated prices. In fact, I submit that if you adhere to the formula in Clause 21 (3), inasmuch as it is on the pure basis of estimates you may always be increasing the charge higher than it was intended to be by the House when it passed the Financial Resolution. I think we shall tend to limit very strictly the amount if we can get an actual firm market price.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: All I have to say on that is that although it may be that in many cases this alteration would mean a reduction, it may in some cases mean an increase.

Captain Ramsay: On a point of Order. The matter that interests my hon. Friends and myself is whether or not the market report is an accurate and reliable statement. Is it out of order, therefore, to speak on an alternative method which is merely suggested as a method of greater accuracy, and not with any intention of raising the charge?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member in the first place seems to be putting a hypothetical question. In the second place, he is putting a question which has nothing to do with the matter we are now discussing. His question is based on the question of accuracy of reports, if I understand him rightly, and that is not a matter to be dealt with at this point.

Mr. J. Morgan: On a point of Order. If it is a fact that it is not so much the total volume of money that is required to be expended or increased as that there should be justice done to any

particular area within the use of that money —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's question appears to be on another point not a question of Order.

Mr. Alexander: I am sorry to prolong questions relating to the point of Order, but I am anxious to be clear about this matter. I am not speaking without a good deal of inside knowledge of what is going on about the arrangement of the formula, and that is why I am anxious to get the right point of view. I know that the formula which is to be recommended to the Minister under Subsection (3) will constitute a much higher charge than we contemplated in passing the Money Resolution; in other words, the formula which is likely to be adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture is likely to constitute a higher charge than we have yet been informed. That is why I have been asking for particulars of how this formula was arrived at when the estimates were given to the House. I want to limit the charge by putting in a ceiling figure of £ 900,000 and to move an alternative method of ascertaining it on a dead-weight basis.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that that is not in order. As to the second Amendment, I have made some observations as a result of what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying in his speech. I am pointing out that this alteration in the system of ascertaining the amount of the subsidy would be out of order on the Report stage if it were possible that in some instances it might increase the amount of the subsidy.

Mr. Alexander: I will, of cause., leave myself entirely in the hand of Mr. Speaker or of Mr. Deputy-Speaker on a point like this. All I can say is that I am convinced that what I am arguing for would not increase the charge on the average. I think it would, on the average, reduce the charge, but: if Mr. Deputy-Speaker has ruled that there may be an increased charge on any particular person, of course I must accept that Ruling.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That s a true statement of the position under the established procedure. If it be that there may


be a reduction in the majority of cases, yet if in certain cases there might be an increase, then the Amendment is out of order on the Report stage.

Mr. Alexander: In view of your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I must address myself finally to my case for the limit of £ 900,000. The House has not been treated with sufficient frankness on this matter. We have been given a round figure of £ 2,250,000 and the average figure of £ 900,000. We have been forced to come right up to the Report stage without any real guidance from the Ministry as to how the scheme for basing the subsidy will work. We have had no information at all. It is quite fortuitous that I happen to know what this scheme is likely to be. It is not finally settled.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Would my right hon. Friend tell us what the scheme is?

Mr. Alexander: I am sorry, but I can not do that because the Government have not come to a final recommendation and I do not think it would be right to do so. I know enough about it —

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The right hon. Gentleman has charged the Government with lack of frankness. Do I understand from him that the scheme is in course of being framed and is not in the possession of the Minister? If the Minister is not in possession of the scheme it is hardly fair to charge him with lack of frankness in not disclosing that scheme.

Mr. Alexander: Perhaps I should not have used the word "frankness," but the House has not been given the fullest information. The position is that the House is asked to pass a Bill which imposes charges in an ordinary year, the most favourable year to the taxpayer, of between £ 5,000,000 and £ 6,000,000, and may run to £ 8,000,000 or £ 9,000,000. In addition to that is the sheep subsidy, which may cost the Government on the average £ 900,000. We have not the faintest idea how they propose to get that figure. All we know is that Clause 21 (3) does not embody a sound method of arriving at the average market price. If we could have some information from the Minister why the formula in Clause 21 (3) has been adopted, we should know where we were, but we do not know.
The argument may be that we are going to be subject to the well-known procedure of reports from the Ministry's markets

reports, but from all accounts some of the market reporters are very good, some are not so good and some are very indifferent. In one or two cases I believe that the lady clerk of a land agent sends on what she believes to be the average price obtained in the particular fat-stock market for the day. That is a very un firm basis upon which to lay down formulas for assessing a subsidy of this kind. I regret that, owing to the Rules of the House, it is apparently not possible to get a direct vote upon the Amendment which I have put down, but I feel that it is too bad for the Minister to have brought the House of Commons right through to this stage without more adequate information. All I can do is to say that if, when the scheme has been submitted to the Minister and approved by him, and it comes to Parliament the same inequities are still in the scheme, I should say that those who represent the slaughtering trade and those who represent the producers should make their case to the House for an Amendment of the scheme. It is true that instead of the procedure adopted in the case of a marketing scheme which would require an, affirmative Resolution, the Minister has been careful to adopt the other procedure. The scheme to be adopted under this Clause would have to be the subject of a Prayer at Eleven o'Clock. We should not be able to move an Amendment because we should have to bring pressure to bear upon the Minister to withdraw the whole scheme.
If we cannot get satisfaction at this stage of the Bill we must warn the Minister that when the matter comes before the House we must take especial care to see that it contains a properly based scheme and that it has a proper system of getting market reports for the purposes of the subsidy. It is a great pity that the Minister, in company with so many other Ministers, should be rushing this House with important legislation, all crowded into the last few weeks, and to expect the House to sit late night after night in order to rush it through Committee, morning and afternoon. In the Bill we are being asked to agree to spending 8,000,000 or £ 9,000,000 without having had sound information how the figure has been arrived at.

9.45 p.m.

Captain Ramsay: I would like to associate myself with many of the remarks that have been made. Although I cannot


subscribe to the actual Amendment on the Paper, I would point out that there is a great deal of anxiety and doubt in the countryside. I think that a great deal of doubt and anxiety has been brought about unnecessarily with regard to these schemes, and I hope that, when the Minister speaks, he will be able to reassure a great many people with whom I have been talking during the last few week-ends. With regard to the market reporters, I have little doubt that it will be found very difficult for any of them to decide what the real value of the sheep will be, and I should be very grateful if my right hon. and gallant Friend would say whether there is any real objection to the adoption of the method outlined in the second Amendment. I have spoken to people who are responsible for bringing to market many thousands of sheep, and they are very anxious that something of this kind should be brought into the Bill. I have spent a great many hours in endeavouring to arrive at some kind of conclusion as to how these people will be affected by the subsidy, but we have been quite unable to arrive with any accuracy at what they would have received last year. I submit that, knowing as we do the intentions of the Minister, and his resolve to help the sheep industry, it would be a great help in relieving the doubt, which is finding its reflection in the lamb sales, among the farming and sheep-raising community at the moment, if he would make clear to them what is really in his mind, and would reassure them that it is wrong to think that the scheme is likely to be anything but beneficial to them.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: I feel that this Amendment has been put forward in such a way as to draw attention to the fact that the first effect of this sheep scheme has already been to damage the sheep industry. This industry has really been in difficulties in only one of the last four or five difficult years for agriculture. Last year is used as the justification for coming to the aid of a section of the industry which was managing very well on its own, particularly in Scotland. Apart from last year, which was a seasonal affair, the weather conditions being very unfavourable, Scotland was getting on top of the sheep position, and was supplying the market with the kind of carcases that

it wanted. I doubt whether two or three years of this scheme will do anything to recover for Scotland the damage that has been done this year.
I am not arguing for or against the import regulations for mutton and lamb, but unquestionably, when the regulations with regard to mutton and iamb imports from overseas were put into operation, they had a very firming effect on the market. Immediately this scheme came in sight, and discussion arose as to the amount of subsidy that would be available, the kind of influence began to creep into market conditions which tends to send that particular section of the industry downhill. The autumn sales are in front of us, and the Minister is unable to tell us whether the scheme will be operating in the autumn or whether it will operate in October. If the sheep industry is injured this year, the repercussions will be felt for a year or two at least, even if it recovers at all. It seems a pity that any attempt should have been made to deal with the sheep industry without the whole background having been fully explored, and the interests affected taken closely into account. I doubt whether anything that the Bill can do in the next year or two can enable the industry to recover from the damage which has already been done or is in immediate prospect.
Now that a certain amount of money has been allocated for the use of the sheep industry, the attempt will no doubt be made to make the conditions in the industry, possibly in the early stages, fit into the money available. If so, it will be found that a wholly false position and outlook have been created, the Minister will see to it that the sheep industry fits into the sum of money under the scheme, if only to justify the scheme, and. there may be latitude in the early stages. How are we to suppose otherwise? We have no information upon which to go. We hear that there are to be two types of sheep, light-weights and heavy-weights, which may affect the economy of the hill farmer in the Lowlands to an. amazing extent. He was just getting on top of a very good market, but now he does not know in which category he may be. and he may be forced into a category that is different from any type that he under stands. All we know is that an at terapt is to be made to make 23 breeds of sheep, as well as several crosses, fit into these two cate-


gories. What relation have they to the market outlets which certain groups of farmers from the Welsh hills and the Low lands have built up, or to the other types which people in the South of England have been buying from Scotland for finishing? The Scotsman who is anxious to get hold of some part of the subsidy may find that he is operating with sheep, that might well be classified as fat sheep, on a store price basis, because the other fellow is after the subsidy. This is all to be done for the sake of a few hundred thousand pounds a year, and the whole system of examination and certification and muddling about with sheep in live markets, with the whole industry riddled with dissatisfaction over the methods employed to ascertain the market price, to grade the sheep, clip them in the ear —

Mr. Snadden: I venture to suggest that the hon. Member's remarks are rather misleading. Actually, the grading under the sheep scheme will be quite simple. There will be the light-weight sheep and the heavy-weight sheep, with a minimum and a maximum weight. All that will be done will be that the sheep will be marked according to the grade. It will be no trouble to the farmer, as far as I can see. I am more concerned with questions of prices and so on. I do not think so much difficulty will be found in the operation of the scheme.

Mr. Morgan: I agree that there will not be much difficulty, but there will be significance in the fact that all the types of sheep are now to be merged into lightweight or heavy-weight, as the case may be. What is the object of all this?

Mr. Snadden: The object is to put a bottom into the sheep market. The sheep farmer will not make a penny more than he made before, but he will now know that he can farm properly, and that, if he meets with a relapse in prices, he will have something to sit down upon. He cannot make a profit out of the scheme.

Mr. Morgan: That is an admission. It is to put a bottom into his market, but is not going to give him anything more than he has had on the average for the last four or five years. Does it mean that he can go and ask his bank manager for an overdraft on the strength of the fact that he has a flock of sheep that he says are worth 10d. a 1b. because the Govern-

ment say they are worth 10d. a lb.? If that be so, what we really need is either a long-term or a short-term credit scheme and a proper security basis for farming, and not demoralisation of a thoroughly healthy sheep industry leading the public to suppose that the sheep fanners are now getting their nose into the trough. That has already begun to demoralise a thoroughly healthy industry, which ought to have been approached from another angle, and not dealt with by this superficial system of subsidies.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: As far as the sheep farmers in Scotland are concerned, they had a very successful season last year. They are most anxious at the moment to have a scheme to deal with bracken, which is gradually covering all the hillsides of Scotland. If this money, instead of being used to subsidise sheep farmers—

Mr. Speaker: That is quite outside the scope of the Amendment.

9.57 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am rather at a loss to know what I am to answer. The right hon. Gentleman has given us a lot of good market chatter. I do not think the complaint that the House has not been treated with sufficient frankness can lie. We have, under this Bill, to charge the Livestock Commission with the duty of preparing and submitting a scheme, within the framework of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman is in the fortunate position of being in the councils of the Livestock Commission. He says that they have gone a certain way. I have no knowledge of what they are doing— it would be improper if I had. But I shall have a scheme sumitted to me in the Commission's good time. The Government will have to use their judgment as to whether there are to be any modifications in the scheme, and the scheme will then be submitted to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that he will have his eye on that scheme very carefully, and that if in fact it does not suit his ideas and the ideas of his party he will see that it is properly discussed. That is as it should be. I do not think there is any reason to imagine that I shall put forward a scheme which will be fantastic, but until I have seen the scheme I cannot discuss it.

Mr. Alexander: I pointed out that Sub-section (3) of Clause 21 is the basis of the formula on which you arrive at the standard price. It is all very well to leave it to the Commission, but the Minister must first have had in his mind what was going to be in Sub-section (3). How did he get an adverage of £ 900,000?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: For a great number of years the method of getting at the average price has been to take the reports of the various markets. The accuracy of these reports has been questioned. It has been ascertained how remarkably close those estimates have been to the final figures of the Livestock Commission. The people who do these estimates depend for their living on whether they are clever at estimating or not. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, from his knowledge of the Livestock Commission and of the market prices as estimated, that the people who do the estimating are shown by experience to be rather good at the job. In view of the importance which the estimating and the whole of the marketing arrangements will assume, we shall naturally do what we can to get as close to uniformity as possible in this matter. I appreciate that this scheme is not going to be too easy.

Mr. Alexander: If the Minister takes that view of what I have said about prices, I hope he will examine from time to time the agricultural marketing reports, and note the difference between the average prices for the livestock markets and for the dead-weight centres. He will find extraordinary differences.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Dead-weight prices are for sales from wholesaler to retailer, and the others are the prices that the actual producer gets. Even in respect of dead weight, a lot is pure estimate. At Smithfield you get the reporter going round to all the dealers, asking what they are paying, averaging them all out, and then giving an estimate on the average. If you are going to trace each transaction on every one of about 10,000,000 sheep, that is going to be difficult. I suggest we should leave the matter until the scheme is put down. On the question of whether the Government will limit this to £ 900,000, I do not think he will expect me to accept that suggestion. That cuts across the basis of price insurance. We believe that if there is a collapse in prices, as there

was last year, we shall have to deal with all sheep going through the market.

10.4 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: The Minister objected to the charge that he had not been frank with the House, but I cannot help thinking that he missed an opportunity in his speech of rebutting the very serious charges uttered by more than one hon. Member about the position in Scotland. I do not altogether share the opinion of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. J. Morgan) about the position of the sheep farming industry in Scotland in recent years. It has been one of increasing difficulty. There was already serious anxiety among those interested in sheep farming in Scotland before this Bill was introduced. On the other hand, I cannot share the optimism of the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden), who said that at any rate there was a bottom in the market. Figures of recent markets do not show that that confidence is shared in the industry. There is very grave anxiety, as the result of that, amongst sheep farmers.
I hope and trust and pray, because this is a vitally important industry, that the optimism expressed by the hon. Member will be justified, though I cannot say I share it. [Interruption.] The Minister has paid a well-deserved tribute to the shrewdness of these people. They know that the Bill is going through, but they are not at present showing confidence in its working, and indeed the farmers themselves have expressed the view that the basis on which these calculations are to be made is not a good basis. Surely the Minister or the Undersecretary could now say something which would give a measure of confidence to the farmers, or at any rate remove the doubts that have been expressed by organisations, by farmers all over the country and by sheep farmers in particular, and show in what respects these anxieties are misplaced and give us some grounds for confidence in the future.

Mr. Alexander: We cannot divide on the Amendment that I want to divide on, and we have no desire to take the other points separately and limit the amount in such a way that you could not fulfil the function of the Bill. In the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 22 — (Schemes for regulating fat sheep subsidy payments.)

10.7 p.m.

Sir R. Acland: I beg to move, in page 23, line 3, at the end, to insert:
 (4) The Scheme may. make provision for the encouragement of the sale of fat sheep by dead weight and grade including the making of payments for fat sheep so sold different from the payments for fat sheep sold otherwise.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) moved an identical Amendment in Committee, which had been on the Paper for four or five days, and he asked one or two questions. The Minister asked for time to consider them and the Amendment was withdrawn in order that that time might be given. I do not think the Minister will complain that the Opposition has not sincerely and honestly done its best to improve the Bill. I believe I am correct in saying that he has not accepted a single one of the Amendments which we have submitted to him. I would appeal to him most earnestly to see whether he cannot accept this, which is merely permissive. It does not compel anyone to do anything. It merely gives to the Livestock Commission a power which the Minister may not see that he has any need to make use of at this moment but which may at some future time be very useful to him or to one of his successors. The questions that we asked, and which the right hon. Gentleman asked time to consider, were roughly speaking, What does the Government think of the sale of livestock by grade and deadweight? What progress has been made in the sale of livestock by this method, which has been several times commented upon by the Commission and by Departmental inquiries? What, if anything, does the Government propose to do to extend this method of selling livestock from its present position to a better position? There is one point on which I have a slight doubt. In the Ministry's marketing leaflet No. 75 it is said that the total number of sheep dealt with under the scheme is 178,000 odd. I cannot quite determine, from my reading of the report, whether that refers to 178,000 sheep per year or whether 178.000 is the total number of sheep sold under the scheme since 1930, when I understand it was first introduced. These are points which I hope the Minister will deal with.
There is another question I should like him to deal with. What does he really think of the present method by which the greater part of our sheep are marketed in quite small markets, when the buyers pass down the pens and very often decide more or less who is going to buy what and then a process of auction is gone through? Is the Minister satisfied with that method of marketing sheep? There are a great many people who feel that it is really out of date. This method of selling sheep by grade and dead-weight is a great deal more scientific. It involves that a farmer desiring to sell his sheep notifies the officer of the Ministry, with a rough description of the naimals. He receives within one or two days a cash quotation or quotations for his beasts based upon the price per pound that will be given for them at centres specified in the quotation according to the grade. The advantage of this scheme over others is that all questions of the grade and quality of the beasts are not settled by someone who takes a look at them while they are still alive and estimates what grade they will reach when they are killed out. Those questions are settled by accurate measurements after they have been killed, in the presence of the Minister's officers and, if he chooses, in the presence of the farmer or his agent, so that every one knows that the farmer is being paid more precisely for the thing that he has to sell. Also, when he receives the quotation, he can decide whether the price is worth his while to accept. He is relieved from the business of driving the beasts to market and waiting about, when he would prefer to be on the farm, and very likely at the end of the day driving them home again because he has not been made an offer which he considers reasonable.
What does the Minister think of this form of selling, and what is he going to do to encourage it? I believe it is worthy of serious encouragement as a real contribution to a problem which I believe the Minister is aware of, though in the Clauses of the Bill he does not anywhere show that he is aware of it.
I have said many things which are not popular with agriculturists, but one should say them if they are true, and I do not think that the Minister will dispute that, throughout the whole range of livestock products, there has been a steady tendency over a great many years, and one


which I believe is still going on, though I have not myself checked it during the last few months, for the prices of foreign and Dominion produce to overtake, and sometimes to pass, the prices for corresponding British produce. Upon what is that based? This is a thing which is unpopular, but is the truth. It is based upon quality, suitability of the market, and upon the fact that our foreign and Dominion competitors, unfortunately, are learning and have learnt the art of presenting their produce onto the market standardised, month by month, the same, each item in a large delivery as near as possible similar to, or identical with, another, and they have learned the art of putting upon the market precisely those sizes, qualities and kinds of goods, and joints of meat which the market really demands.
Here is a Bill in which the taxpayer is asked to pay money. We have approved of that principle from these benches, but how long can that go on, particularly if we come to a period of financial difficulty, if the taxpayer sees that the industry under the leadership of the present Government and the present Conservative agricultural Members of Parliament is not making the necessary effort to catch up with the Dominion and foreign producer in learning what are, after all, nothing more or less than the twentieth century methods of salesmanship.
I would remind the Minister and hon. Members opposite that I am not here proposing some freak method of selling livestock or something of which we have had no experience, because we have had very considerable experience. The farmers of this country have had considerable experience of selling by grade and deadweight, and on the whole they are not displeased with that part of their experience. I refer to selling pigs under the factory schemes in which farmers are to-day paid on the basis of grade and dead-weight. They dispatch their pigs to the factories not knowing precisely to which grade they will be found to belong, and the prices they receive are worked out and ascertained after very accurate measurement. I believe it runs into one-eighth inches after they have been killed out.
Many complaints have been made of the pig scheme, and as far as I know the complaints have not centred around the idea

that that scheme of selling is in itself a wrong or unsatisfactory one. On the whole that system of selling has been proved, and it has produced the most remarkable effect. It has introduced into this country, it is not unfair to say, a revolution in the methods of breeding and of feeding pigs. One finds all over the country far more of the scientific pig houses springing up, and being demanded by farmers from their landlords, and being built by the more progressive fanners where the most up-to-date methods of breeding pigs take place. The Minister will not claim that anything of the same kind takes place under the cattle scheme. The fanner is pleased if his beast achieves the 7s. 6d. grade and he is disappointed if it achieves only the 5s. grade. The Minister cannot claim that there has been any revolution in the methods of breeding, feeding and fattening cattle corresponding to the revolution that has taken place in the methods of producing pigs in this country, which has arisen out of the grade and dead-weight system of buying pigs in the factory. Therefore, an encouragement of this scheme would be likely to produce the very same result in regard to sheep as has been produced in regard to pigs.
If the Minister cannot accept the Amendment I invite him to say what proposals he has in mind for encouraging this method of selling. It requires only a very little encouragement to make it go. I believe that farmers who take up this method of selling find that they receive in very many cases higher prices, after having deducted all the charges and after having taken everything into account, than they were getting in the local markets. If the right hon. Gentleman asks why it has not made headway before, my reply is that there is a good reason for it. Earlier this evening I referred to the position of indebtedness of farmers which makes it difficult for the farmer to select from which source he will purchase his raw materials. In exactly the same way I believe that very frequently the position of indebtedness among farmers makes it difficult for them to select the channel through which they will market their produce. That is very largely an obstacle standing in the way. A very small financial stimulus to back up this method of selling would have the effect of spreading it a very long way, so that we could introduce into our


marketing of sheep something that would have about it a real breath of the twentieth century method of salesmanship, something that would introduce into sheep marketing an element of the scientific and give us a chance of producing in this industry precisely what the market really requires. Therefore, I commend the Amendment to the attention of the House, and I beg the Minister, if he possibly can, to accept it.

Mr. W. Roberts: I beg to second the Amendment.

10.24 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I am sure the House will sympathise with me in the fact that I am making my maiden speech in this House as assistant to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I wish it had been on fishing that I had to speak to-night. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) informed us that his hon. Friend the Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) withdrew this Amendment in Committee so that certain information could be collected and imparted to him. The hon. Member for Barnstaple went on to make a plaintive request that, seeing that no other Amendment had been accepted during this Report stage, my right hon. Friend might accept this one, good or bad, just as a matter of good will. I should have liked, as this is my maiden speech, to have done what he suggests, but I am sorry to say that on this occasion I cannot do so. In regard to marketing, if time permitted, I should have liked to have entered into a discussion with the hon. Member.
As far as marketing schemes are concerned the Livestock Commission are dealing with that question at this moment and it is to them that we must look for advice on this matter. We must leave it to those who are experts to advise the Minister. If we accept the Amendment it means that we are introducing into a price insurance scheme an entirely new element, which in my opinion would not achieve the object which the hon. Member desires. When the Bill becomes an Act arrangements can be made in this matter under the Livestock Industry Act of 1937, but when you come to a scheme which has been in operation since 1930 there is a different state of affairs altogether. The scheme which was inaugurated in 1930 was extended to sheep in

1931, but on a very small scale. The figure which the hon. Member has mentioned of 178,000 is the total number of sheep dealt with since 1931. Last year the number was about 40,000. There are nine centres for sale. The suggestion is that the scheme should be allowed to stand on its own bottom. It is a question of better grading and better prices, and if it proves that it cannot be carried on successfully without a subsidy then it is for the Minister of Agriculture to suggest a direct subsidy for that purpose alone. This is a price insurance scheme which may not be running for very long— at least we hope it will not— and to attach a scheme such as that suggested by the hon. Member is to my mind to make it unworkable. If it is necessary that assistance should be given for a particular purpose let us come to the House and ask for it.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I think the Amendment is very important because it embodies powers of the kind which we sought to obtain by a previous Amendment. Every Scottish agricultural representative who is concerned about the question of arriving at an average market price ought really to support the Amendment under which powers can be taken and I shall be disappointed if hon. Members representing Scottish agricultural constituencies, who really want to see a bottom put on the prices, do not support the Amendment. This is an opportunity which they have of correcting an injustice under which Scottish farmers are suffering.

10.29 p.m.

Sir A. Sinclair: I should like to compliment the Minister of Pensions, who is assisting the Minister of Agriculture, on his first speech on agriculture in this House. I am quite sure that he will make many speeches, but I do not think he will make a more entertaining one. At the same time, I hope that in future he will take the precaution of reading the Amendment to which he is going to reply, and give us a more relevant speech than he has this evening. The Minister of Pensions said that we should leave it to the Livestock Commission; that the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) should not try to impose his ideas on Parliament and the industry. My hon. Friend does propose to leave it to the expert Livestock Commission. He proposes to give them


power to introduce this particular method into the marketing machinery.
Although I am far from saying that this Amendment would go the whole way to satisfy the fanners of Scotland and meet the demands which they have been making, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) for pointing out that it would at any rate do something to meet the claims which they have been making recently in resolutions and speeches. Again, I repeat the plea that I made a few minutes ago to the Minister of Agriculture and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to say a word or two about Scotland and the Scottish position. This Debate has been going on for the last hour and a half on two or three different Amendments and we have heard from the Government Front Bench nothing about the Scottish fanners. There have been speeches by hon. Members above the Gangway on this side, hon. Members on these benches and hon. Members opposite pointing out the anxiety of the Scottish farmers, and not a word has been said by Members of the Government in reply to those speeches. I ask the Minister to say something on this point now, for this is almost the last opportunity he will have of doing so on this Bill.

10.32 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) had been in the Chamber most of the afternoon, he might have thought it was a Scottish afternoon. Both from the Government Front Bench and from other parts of the House there have been speeches having special reference to Scotland.

Sir A. Sinclair: On oats.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: With regard to this Amendment, I think it would be unfortunate to put England on one side and Scotland on the other, but I am sure the House will agree that if we were to give something extra, as an inducement, to the people who send to the deadweight centres, it would go outside the intention of the Bill, which is to pay, not for mutton, but for fat sheep. I hope sincerely that the farmers will be able to support these dead-weight centres, and certainly I re-echo the hope that they will pay the greatest attention to meeting the needs of the market. That is most

important for the future. However, I do not think it would be right, under the terms of the Bill and the intention of the Government, to give any special inducement at the expense of another part of the industry to those who send to the dead-weight centres. There are very few dead-weight centres in England and Wales, and the farmers would have to send a long way. At the moment I do not think it. would be right to give that incentive at the expense of the men who have to send to the livestock market.
I have been asked to give some words of encouragement to the Scotsmen, but I find it very difficult to do so, because I am not absolutely certain that some of them want to be encouraged. The point about this scheme is that last year, throughout Great Britain, the average price for sheep was something over 8.78d. per pound, according to our determination. We are using the same determination for the future, and the price cannot be below 10d. on the same determination. If the Scottish farmers say that our 10d. means 8d., the only answer is that our 8d. last year meant 6d., broadly speaking. They cannot but be better off if a slump comes, as it did last year. There is no doubt whatever about that. I hope that will be a word of encouragement to them.

10.35 p. m

Mr. Gallacher: As one who is interested in agriculture and in Scotland as a whole, I want to see what the Mover of this Amendment suggested, namely, a scientific method of approach to this question of the breeding and sale of sheep—as indeed I would like to see scientific methods introduced in all branches of agriculture. I would not have intervened had it not been for the reply made by the Minister of Pensions in his new capacity as assistant to the Minister of Agriculture. He said, in effect, '" Let us try this, and if it does not work, and if the farmers make an appeal for a direct subsidy, then we will consider giving them a direct subsidy." But can we ever get anywhere by makeshift methods of that kind? I will take any hon. Member up to Scotland and show him whole agricultural areas which are in the deepest distress.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now going far beyond the scope of the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 217.

CLAUSE 32. — (Payments to Agricultural Mortgage Corporation.)

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, in page 29, line 31, to leave out "either by way of grant or."
We regard the omission of these words as being important. In the Debate in Standing Committee I raised a number of what I thought were pertinent questions asking for information, to which the Minister endeavoured, to the best of his ability, to give answers, and where he answered the point I certainly do not wish to go over the ground again. We are asked here to vote £ 60,000 a year for 20 years, additional to the £ 32,500 already paid, to this bankers' corporation for the purpose of enabling them to meet the charges on their debentures. It seems to us quite reasonable that that money should be advanced not as a grant but as a loan. The Minister will probably answer, "We have put in the words by way of grant or loan,'" but I am certain that if those words are left in it will be the grant procedure which will be followed and not the loans procedure.

The bankers will see to it that they get State money with which to guarantee the payments to be made upon the debentures they have issued. I could say a great deal upon this subject, but I do not wish to go over the arguments which I used in Committee upstairs and I hope that in the circumstances the Minister will be prepared to say that we should move in this matter by way of loan and not by way of grant.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. J. Morgan: Whatever action the House may take in this matter, I hope hon. Members will not feel that this is an agricultural reform. It is a pure gift of public money to banking interests who have failed to give the agricultural industry any satisfactory credit facilities in the last years. A few years ago leading banks found themselves loaded with securities in the shape of farms which had been mortgaged to them. They did not like this particular type of security, and they loaded it on to the country in this Agricultural Mortgage Corporation at five per cent., and rendered the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation incapable of provid-


ing any effective credit to farmers and it could not earn enough money out of farming to pay its debenture interest. Now they appeal to the Treasury, and the Treasury are going to supplement out of public funds the deficiency in the interest payments from the farming industry. This Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, with the interests functioning through and behind it, has made it impossible to get proper credit facilities, and it is a most undesirable business that we should be handing out money to banking interests to support debenture holders in this way. In any case, if we want the Corporation still to function we can loan them the money for the time being in the hope that their business may improve, that credit facilities to farmers may function more satisfactorily and that we can rescue for the Treasury the amount now advanced. In any case let hon. Members understand perfectly well that, whether they vote for a grant or a loan, they are voting not in the interests of agriculture but to give the bankers of this country "a nice leg up."

10.49 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am afraid that I cannot follow the hon. Member for Don-caster (Mr. J. Morgan). I entirely disagree with his appreciation of the situation; but that is another story. The question of whether this money should be given by grant or by loan or whether, as the Amendment suggests, it should be by way of loan only, raises a fundamental difference between this side of the House and the Opposition. We consider that there should be elasticity; that the matter should be left to the judgment of the Treasury. It is for the Government to decide whether it shall be by loan or by grant, and there are precedents for this. It has been done before in the case of the Development and Road Improvement Fund, which authorised the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Development Commissioners, to make advances, either by way of grant or by way of loan. Another example is the Colonial Development Act, 1929. Naturally, the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation will not always need grants, but you cannot tell what the conditions will be in 20 years' time. You do not know what is going to happen then. In 20 years' time the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation will be able, if the market is good, to

redeem their debentures. It would be a misfortune when that time came if they had a tremendous debt, and were not able to redeem and to borrow on better terms. Therefore, it is considered best to leave this at the discretion of the Treasury.

Mr. J. Morgan: The Minister in reply to me dismissed my suggestion as being unfounded. I want to ask him, Is it not a fact that this grant or loan is to enable the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation to pay the debenture holders in full, and are not those debenture holders, in fact, mostly the leading bankers?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The debenture holders are the ordinary public.

Mr. Morgan: Mostly bankers.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That I simply cannot say. I do not believe they are. But, anyway, the debenture holders are protected by a sum of money at the present moment at the disposal of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. This will not make any difference to the debenture holders over a period of years.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I do not want this House and hon. Members opposite in particular to imagine that, because we are making it possible to grant to this Agricultural Mortgage Corporation £ 60,000 per annum for the next 20 years, that means that this is going to be a good, credit scheme for agriculture. The right hon. Gentleman knows that quite the contrary is the case, and I only rose to make that clear. Ten years since we gave this organisation £ 10,000 per annum for 10 years towards administrative expenses. We are now to give them a further £ 60,000 per annum for 20 years, and it is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend says, that this is safeguarding the interests of debenture holders, rather than safeguarding a really good, solid credit scheme for agriculture. For these reasons, I hope my hon. Friends will not hesitate to vote against it.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 124.

Division No. 249.]
AYES.
[10.37 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Poole, C. C.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hardie, Agnes
Price, M. P.


Adamson, W. M.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A, V. (H'lsbr.)
Hayday, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Barnes, A. J,
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Isaacs, G. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Batey, J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
John, W.
Shinwell, E.


Bevan, A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Silkin, L.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sloan, A.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Collindridge, F.
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leonard, W.
Stokes, R. R.


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Dunn, E, (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Tomlinson, G.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Welsh, J. C.


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, B. W.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Oliver, G. H.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.
Sir Richard Acland and


Groves, T. E.
Parkinson, J. A.
Sir Percy Harris.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pearson, A.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Emery, J. F.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Colfox, Major Sir W. P.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Apsley, Lord
Colman, N. C. D.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Everard, Sir William Lindsay


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Fleming, E. L.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Beechman, N. A.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Furness, S. N.


Bernays, R. H.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Boulton, W. W.
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cross, R. H.
Goldie, N. B.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Crossley, A. C.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Braithwaite, J. Gurney (Holderness)
Davidson, Viscountess
Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.


Brass, Sir W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Granville, E. L.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Danville, Alfred
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Doland, G. F.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Donner, P. W.
Grimston, R. V.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.>


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Drewe, C.
Hambro, A. V.


Butcher, H. W.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hannah, T.G.


Carver, Major W. H.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Cary, R. A.
Duggan, H. J.
Harbord, Sir A.


Cayzer,, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dunglass, Lord
Haslam. Sir J. (Bolton)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Edmondson, Major Sir j.
Heilgers, Captain F. F A.


Christie, J. A.
Ellis, Sir G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.




Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Snadden, W. McN.


Hepworth, J.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Higgs, W. F.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)


Holmes, J. S.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W, S. (Cirencester)
Storey, S.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Munro, P.
Strauss, H. C. (Norwich)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nicholson, Hon. H. G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hunter, T.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hutchinson, G. C.
Peake, O.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Jarvis, Sir J. J,
Perkins, W. R. D.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Jennings, R.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Petherick, M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Keeling, E. H.
Procter, Major H. A.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Kellett, Major E. O.
Purbrick, R.
Touche, G. C.


Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Radford, E. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Kimball, L.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Turton, R. H.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rankin, Sir R.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Ward, Lieut.Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L,
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Warrender, Sir V.


Liddall, W. S.
Reld, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Lindsay, K. M.
Remer, J. R.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Lipson, D. L.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Rosbotham, Sir T.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Loft us, P. C.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Wickham, Ll.-Col. E. T. R.


Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


M'Connell, Sir J.
Rowlands, G.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Wragg, H.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


McKie, J. H.
Salt, E. W.
York, C.


Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.



Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Schuster, Sir G. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Marsden, Commander A.
Selley, H. R.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Shakespeare, G. H
Captain Waterhouse.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.

Division No. 250.]
AYES.
[10.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Grant-Ferris, Flight-Lieutenant R.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Granville, E. L.
Patrick, C. M.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Peake, O.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Apsley, Lord
Grimston, R. V,
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Petherick, M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Guest, Maj. Hon.O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Hambro, A. V.
Procter, Major H. A.


Beamish, Roar-Admiral T. P. K.
Hammersley, S. S.
Purbrick, R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hannah, I. C.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Beechman, N. A.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Bernays, R. H.
Harbord, Sir A.
Rankin, Sir R.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Boothby, R. J, G,
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boulton, W. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Remer, J. R.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Hepworth, J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Braithwaite, J. Gurnay (Holderness)
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Higgs, W. F.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Brocklebank. Sir Edmund
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Holmes, J. S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rothschild, J. A. de


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rowlands, G.


Butcher, H. W.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hume, Sir G. H
Ruggfes-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cary, R. A.
Hunter, T.
Salmon, Sir I.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Salt, E. W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hutchison, G. C.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Christie, J. A.
Jennings, R.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grimtead)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Selley, H. R.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Sheppereon, Sir E. W.


Colman, N. C. D.
Keeling, E. H.
Snadden, W. McN.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Kellett, Major E. O.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Sco'sh Univs.)
Storey, S.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kimball, L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H, Page
Leech, Sir J. W.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cross, R. H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crossley, A. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lindsay, K. M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lipson, D. L.
Thomas, J. P. L


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Denville, Alfred
Looker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Donner, P, W.
Loftus, P. C.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Turton, R. H.


Drewe, C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Wakefield, W. W.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Duggan, H. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Duncan, J. A. L.
McEwen, Cast. J. H. F.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Dunglass, Lord
McKie, J. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Ellis, Sir G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Emery, J. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Markham, S. F.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Marsden, Commander A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel C.


Fleming, E. L.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Womersley, Sir W. J


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Fremantle, Sir F. E
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wragg, H.


Furness, S. N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Munro, P.
York, C.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gower, Sir R. V.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Captain Waterhouse and


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Captain Dugdale.




NOES.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Bartlett, C. V. O.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Ammon, C. G.
Batey, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Banfield, J. W.
Beaumont, H. (Batley)


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Barnes, A. J.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Barr, J.
Bevan, A.







Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T, (Tradeston)
Pritt, D. N.


Buchanan, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Burke, W. A
Isaacs, G. A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Chater, D.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Ridley, G.


Collindridge, F.
John, W.
Riley, B.


Cove, W. G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Ritson, J.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jones, A. G. (Shipley)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. H[...])


Dalton, H.
Kirby, B. V.
Shinwell, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirkwood, D.
Silkin, L.


Dobbie, W.
Leach, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lee, F.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Ede, J. C.
Leonard, W.
Sloan, A.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, E. (Stoko)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lunn, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr, R. T. H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sorensen, R. W.


Gallacher, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Gardner, B. W.
McGhee, H. G.
Stokes, R. R.


Garro Jones, G. M.
MacLaren, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maclean, N.
Thurtle, E.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Marshall, F.
Tinker, J.J


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.
Tomlinson, G.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morgan, J. (York, W.R.. Doncaster)
Viant, S. P.


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Walkins, F. C.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddlsbro, W.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N)
Watson, W. McL.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Walsh, J. C.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Groves, T. E.
Noel-Baker, P. J
Whitelty, W. (Blaydon)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hardie, Agnes
Parker, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Harris, Sir P, A.
Parkinson, J. A.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C)


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pearson, A.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lswrenoe, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Poole, C. C.
TELLERS POR THE NOES. —


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.
Mr. Anderson and Mr. Mathers


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

11.3 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Consistently throughout the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, we have expressed our point of view on the six items embodied in the Measure. On the Second Reading we did not oppose the ideaof subsidising as a purely emergency measure, and we are also not opposed to the provision of £ 1,250,000 for the purposes of an agricultural machinery reserve, again as a purely emergency measure. But on the question of price insurance for oats, barley and sheep, we were doubtful from the first, in the absence of any costing system or basis of financial calculation, as to the wisdom of Parts I, II and III of the Bill. From the very beginning we have had no figures, facts or calculations to guide us as to whether the oat susbsidy is generous, super-generous or less than generous, and every hon. Member in the House would have to vote blindly if he had to vote for or against Clauses 1 to 8.
The Minister and several of his hon. Friends have said from time to time that there is a scheme of price insurance. There is no such thing as price insurance in a scheme of this description. It is a

price guarantee once the standard price falls below 8s. a cwt. There are no premiums paid; therefore, it cannot be an insurance scheme. While the Treasury guarantee the price if it falls below 8s., they do not recoup themselves if it goes above 10s. The same observations apply to barley and sheep. Therefore, these three schemes are merely financial guarantees to the producers of those commodities. We have had no basis of calculations as to how the Minister determines the cost to the Treasury. We know no more about the matter than we did before the Second Reading.
Clause 9 is an extraordinary Clause, and an extremely dangerous precedent. I can imagine, if the mining industry, the shipping industry, or some other industry had suffered a setback, from causes over which they had no control, and a Labour Government had introduced a Bill to grant a subsidy of £ 3,000,000, what howls of execration there would have been from the Conservative benches, condemning the dangerous precedent of making retrospective payments. Here, this Government is creating such a precedent for the crop of oats and barley for 1938. We do not know whether the farmer was efficient or not; whether the land was cultivated to the best advantage or not. All we know


is that, because the farmers became unruly, the Government dismissed the Minister of Agriculture and appointed another, who was compelled to do something for that section of farmers who produced barley and oats. He was compelled to introduce not only the Clauses dealing with the future, but also Clause 9, which is retrospective. To say the least, it smells badly of politics. It envisages another General Election, and is not far removed from Tammany politics. The Mortgage Corporation is dealt with in the Measure. We cast a vote against that, and I will not dwell on it now.
This Bill may, because there is so much potential money behind it, do a certain amount of good in certain parts of the country, but the principles of the Bill are very unsound. When I recall the Debate that took place from 4 o'clock to 7 o'clock this evening, when hon. Members opposite refused point-blank even to make a gesture to the agricultural labourers although they are so ready to make payments to the farmers, both for the future and for the past, I feel that it does not redound to their credit that they should be so anxious to help farmers and so unwilling to help agricultural labourers. I could very readily cast half a dozenvotes against the Bill but because we are not anxious to prevent either the Minister or the Conservative Government from falling into the grave that they are digging for themselves, we shall not oppose the Third Reading.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: The hon. Member has talked about Tammany politics and suggested that the Measure had been introduced for the purposes of the next election. I started an agitation for a subsidy on oats long ago, in fact even before the last election. It is seven years since my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Sir R. W. Smith) and myself first raised this question— seven years of hard labour— to get a square deal for oat growers. I rise for the purpose of thanking and congratulating my right hon. Friend on the Measure that he has successfully piloted through. I maintain, whatever the hon. Member opposite may say, that if you are going to subsidise one form of cereal crops it is only fair to subsidise all. For the last four, five or six years I have seen subsidised wheat

from England sold in the markets of my own constituency in unfair competition with oats, which is the only cereal crop in my constituency. [Interruption.] What I am arguing is that it is quite unfair to select arbitrarily one cereal crop and subsidise it heavily at the expense of the taxpayers and leave out all other cereal crops, because there are many farmers in many parts of the country who, for reasons over which they have no control, cannot possibly grow wheat.
The hon. Member asked whether this subsidy was excessively generous or not generous enough. I suggest that it is fair, and I think it will be found to be so. I would also suggest that to use the word "subsidy" in connection with these special payments in respect of certain classes of agricultural produce is as much a misnomer as to use the word "insurance." I do not believe that these payments are either subsidy or insurance. They are the price very properly paid under existing conditions by the general taxpayers to the agricultural community for the benefit of cheap food for the working classes from all over the world.
While Members opposite are entitled to criticise from time to time any given payment in respect of any given agricultural commodity, they are entirely wrong to oppose the whole of these grants in principle because, if they were not paid under present conditions, and if foreigners were allowed to dump their surplus from all over the world without let or hindrance, within a matter of two or three years the agricultural industry would be down and out, and I do not think they would wish to see that any more than Members on this side. Thus the Scottish oat grower at long last has got a square deal and, whatever criticism may come from the party opposite, it will be many a long year before the essential features of this Measure are removed from the Statute Book.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Quibell: I was wondering, when the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) was speaking, what had happened with regard to wheat, and what would have been the condition of the wheat growers of this country if something had not been done for them. While the state of depression in Scotland may have been great, it must be generally


recognised by anyone who knows anything about the East Anglian wheat grower that he has also been in a very depressed condition.

Mr. Boothby: I have never suggested that the East Anglian wheat growers ought not to have had the subsidy, but I said that my oat growers ought to have had it.

Mr. Quibell: I accept that explanation. We are now considering the Third Reading of this so-called Agricultural Development Bill. The introduction of the Government's long-term agricultural policy has been repeatedly urged from all sides of this House, and I gather, from the discussion which has taken place, that on all sides, and particularly on this side, none of us is particularly satisfied with the result of the introduction of this Bill. I express the hope that it may bring such prosperity and confidence to this great industry as will secure for the toilers in rural England that standard of life which, we are agreed, their skill and industry merit.
I propose to offer a few comments on the proposals in the Bill. The Minister claims that it will secure stabilised prices for the three commodities mentioned, and I hope that that will be the case. I feel, however, that I must reiterate the statement I have made on several occasions in this House, and which has been made by hon. Members on one side or the other here to-day, that this Bill, which the Minister has stated would be the final Bill dealing with agricultural commodities, by no means represents the final solution of agriculture and the countryside. If we could achieve this result, we should have gone a long way towards arresting the constant drift from the countryside to the towns, thus depriving agriculture of its best men. When a recision takes place it also increases as a consequence the unemployment problem in the large industrial centres. This drift from the villages to the towns is largely caused by the low wage system, bad housing and a lack of proper social amenities in our villages. For that reason, we have not yet been able to promote a properly balanced agricultural economy, and, in so far as this Bill is a serious attempt to fix a price level for certain commodities, it will be welcomed by the agricultural areas of the country.
We must stop this drift from the countryside. It can be done in a satisfactory manner only by securing for the worker higher wage standards, better housing and other social amenities, and this can be placed on a secure foundation only by giving to the producer a proper and economic price for his produce. The farm worker has received constant and continuous service from me for over 20 years both in this country and in this House, and I shall continue to serve him until his wage level is raised at least to that of the general labourer. Figures have been quoted during the Debates on the Bill with respect to the wills which indicated that some farmers have done fairly well. In my division recently one farmer left £ 65,000. Like every farmer and everybody else who passes on, he had to leave behind him all that he had.

Mr. MacLaren: If he took it with him it would melt.

Mr. Quibell: One would think from the remarks that are made that it is a bigger sin for a farmer to leave £ 65,000 than for anybody else to leave that amount. The banker who toils not, neither does he spin, makes money; but the farmer must not or should not. That man gave a lifetime of service. He was one of the best farmers in England, farming two farms. He had been a farmer between 40 and 50 years. I have no complaint to make of any farmer in such circumstances provided he pays proper wages and farms on a high standard. I considersuch a man as one of the greatest friends to the country. On the other hand there are men who would be prominent if there were a standard price for rubbish. The gentleman in question made his money out of good farming.

Mr. MacLaren: Why subsidise him?

Mr. Quibell: Why subsidise us in coming here? He was an exceedingly good farmer. I never knew a better. He was a knowledgeable man. During the last five years he sent me his balance sheets, which I have in my locker, showing that he was losing money. He gave up farming three years before his death, and he had been losing money year after year. [Interruption.] It would be a bad job if men like him died early. Other people might well be spared. He kept


proper books and accounts and had prepared proper balance sheets. From my own experience of him I know that he was a very efficient farmer.
Something has been said about costs. Let me submit something that comes near home. I have balance sheets for the past five years for my own Co-operative Society's farms. We have two of the best farms. There are no farms better equipped. A committee with practical farming experience looks after the management and there is a manager second to none. These are the results. In 1935 there was a loss of £ 239 7s. 5d.; in 1936, a profit of £ 35 8s. 2½ d— some result for farming nearly 800 acres— in 1937, a profit of £ 225 16s. 8d.; in 1938, a profit of £ 91 16s. 10d.; and in 1939, a loss of £467 10s. 10½ d. — a net loss for the five years of £ 353. I am bound to accept these figures; anyone must accept them; they are beyond question. As a matter of fact, we have had these farms for nearly 20 years, and as far as the opinion of the farming committee and many others is concerned, if you ask whether farming pays and whether any costing system can bring a profit into a balance sheet which is not there, they will say that it cannot be done because farming is at the mercy of the elements, the vagaries of the seasons, to such an extent that a farmer never knows when he plants what he is going to reap. I do not think that my friends of the Labour party are really against the principles of the Bill. It may be that they are dissatisfied with the details, but I hold in my hands a pamphlet which we issued only last week saying what the Labour party would do. I hope they will, I am proud of what is their declared intention:
 To pay stabilised prices for farm produce so that a fanner may know in advance just what he is going to get.
I do not disagree with that; none of us disagrees with it; and so we say that to the limited extent to which this Bill fulfils that intention, it must make a contribution in the direction indicated in the pamphlet. The value of the Bill is that it establishes for the first time a standard price for three agricultural commodities. The principle of the Bill of standard prices, has been accepted by us in that pamphlet.
Farming is a balanced process of production which you can easily overspecialise and upset. Mixed, and not specialised, farming is the only method of agriculture for this old country of ours. No industry is so subject to price fluctuation due in some measure to unorganised marketing, chiefly caused by the small producer, the vagaries of nature and the world price of agriculture products. (Interruption). I hope the hon. Member will give me the same order as I gave him.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the hon. Member allow me —

Mr. Quibell: I think I have the Floor of the House. There is, therefore, in my view an overwhelming case for bringing the products covered by the Bill, oats barley and sheep, into some scheme for ensuring minimum prices for these products. To plough up grass land may be a good thing, but after it has been ploughed up it is essential that, as far as the products are concerned, there should be a price level put on them. I want to remind the Minister that the imposition of fines and penalties for growing certain products, restrictions and marketing are considerations which he should bear in mind in dealing with the problem of ploughing up grass land.
The first time I was privileged to speak in the House, I appealed to all sections of the House to pool their resources in a common endeavour to remedy the appalling conditions which then prevailed in the countryside. That was ten years ago. I do so once more, and I trust that, by our united efforts, we may rebuild this industry on a more secure foundation so that it may give a higher standard of life to the labourers and a fair return to all those who invest either their lives or money in this all-important and vital industry.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Snadden: I do not wish to take up the time of the House for more than a few minutes, particularly as I had an opportunity of speaking in the Second Reading Debate and in the Committee upstairs, but I should like to make one or two observations on the Bill before it goes to another place. I am afraid that we Scotsmen are sometimes not too lavish in our praise, but I think I can say that the Scottish farmers do appreciate the very earnest efforts that are being made


by the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland to bring settled conditions to the agricultural industry. I would not like it to be felt that the Scottish farmers do not appreciate that. Moreover, I think I can also say that they are very sensible of the many difficulties which confront the Minister.
With regard to the Bill, I should like to make two observations. First, I think that in the cereals section of the Bill, the Minister will attain his object, and in so doing, he will render a great service. Apparently hon. Members opposite have convinced themselves that when the Bill becomes law the fanners will wax fat on a rich feast of subsidies. I think that is very far from being the case. All that the Bill does is to put a bottom in the market and to give something on which to fall back should prices collapse. It does not guarantee a profit. With regard to the sheep section of the Bill, I appreciate the intention of the Minister to put a bottom into the market for sheep. I feel that there is some confusion about this part of the Bill. The point I wish to make from the Scottish point of view is really a national one. I do not know whether hon. Members realise that the true source of our sheep supplies is to be found on the high hills. There is the nursery from which the fertile valleys and plains draw their supplies, and here Scotland is interlinked with England, because we supply the half bred sheep for the English pastures.
I am a little apprehensive whether any benefit which may come from this scheme will in practice find its way to the key men on the high hills, who are the source of our supplies. If the high hill men, who are the key men, are not to get any benefit, then sooner or later there will be no sheep in Scotland. I ask the Minister, when he makes a review of the position at some future date and goes into the question of where the subsidy goes, to consider the position of the men at the source of our sheep supplies in Scotland. The last point I wish to make is in regard to the imposition of a "ceiling" figure in connection with the sheep section of the Bill. The figure is fixed on a basis of total sheep population, and it is variable with price levels. I have two complaints to make about that. One is that of the total sheep population, less

than one-half can ever come under the scheme at all. The other is that price levels are governed largely by the volume of imports. I again ask the Minister, when the situation is being reviewed after the Measure has been put into operation, to consider the practicability of imposing a ceiling figure based on the actual number of sheep presented for certification, and variable only by reason of any excessive supply coming from the home producer. I think it is reasonable that the home producer should have first place in his own market.

11.37 p.m.

Sir R. Acland: I cannot help feeling that, as a general rule, when a speech made from this side of the House is received with whole-hearted applause from the other side, it is a sign that somebody has gone astray. I have in my short experience noticed that a certain number of agriculturists have the idea that the whole duty of a politician is to see how much money can be provided for agriculture. I have also found a certain number of candidates and speakers of the Opposition parties who thought that if they could make speeches more Tory than the Tories, then the agriculturists would reward them with votes. I believe that to be a complete misconception. We have voted for the Second Reading of the Bill and we intend to vote for the Third Reading in support of the principle contained in the Bill which was described by the Minister in the words "Something must be done for the farmers." The Minister cannot complain that we have not tried to do even more for the long-term interests of agriculture by the Amendments which we put down, and none of which he has been able to accept. But I cannot help feeling disappointed with the Bill as it stands.
For year after year under one Minister after another temporary Measures have been introduced and, as in the case of the Milk Bill, reintroduced, and over and over again we have been assured that each one is positively the last temporary expedient. One Minister after another has given us the impression that there was great mental concentration going on behind the scenes, and that a great permanent policy for agriculture was being devised. This year a new Minister was. vouchsafed to us with a tremendous


flourish of trumpets and we were told that all this Governmental cerebration was coming to a head under his administration. He made a speech in response to a private Member's Motion in which great things were promised to us. No Minister has ever started with more good will from the industry or from both sides of the House. Expectations were kept up from month to month. We were told that the Government were thinking, that they were consulting, that they were investigating, that they were turning over every conceivable stone. Then we had, at long last, the Second Reading of this Bill which the Minister introduced in these words:
 I think the House will agree that the Bill covers so wide and varied a field, and that it may well give Members an opportunity of examining our agricultural policy as a whole.
Then at the end of an interesting speech he said:
 Our policy aims at restoring agriculture to a state of permanent stability and well- being which will enable it to fulfil its proper part in our national life." — [OFFICIALREPORT, 15th June, 1939; cols. 1561 and 1589, Vol. 348.]
On 11th July, on the Committee stage upstairs, the Minister of Pensions said:
 This Bill is only a temporary Measure to deal with the present situation, and is not the occasion to go into the big question." — [OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee D), 11th July, 1939; col. 179.]
The Minister of Agriculture himself today said that this Bill must be regarded as no more than just a finishing-off of the patching process which has been going on for eight years. The Bill does not touch marketing or the grading of produce, it does not help our home industry to catch up with the twentieth century methods of marketing which our competitors have learned, it does not reduce the cost of production of any agricultural product by a single penny piece, it does not prevent the abuse of land by those who do not cultivate it properly, it does not touch the vested interests who batten on the farmer, whether in selling to or in buying from him, there is no insistence that a single penny should be passed on to the worker, and we have not been allowed to prevent the whole of the benefit from the Bill being passed on to the landlord. All the great problems still remain. There have been eight years of Governmental thought, and still all the great problems

of agriculture remain unsolved. I hope that the Minister realises that if he is to go down to history as the man who really brought British agriculture round the corner from its position of difficulty, before very long he will have to do something very much better than anything that we have before us to-night.

11.42 p.m.

Captain Heilgers: I am sorry the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) has gone out, because I should like to have expressed to him my congratulations on his courage in exposing the farming losses of Co-operative Societies. I, too, having seen the balance-sheet, of Co-operative Societies farms, and know that in what he said he spoke the honest truth.

Mr. J. Morgan: I also am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) has gone out, but he did tell me that they had paid 4 per cent. on the members capital in each of those farms before the final figures were struck in all the accounts.

Captain Heilgers: The figure which the hon. Member gave of £ 453 loss last year was not one which would encourage people to farm to-day. I want, however, to refer to one problem which has had very little attention during the passage of this Bill, and that is the question of barley. I regret very much that no definite scheme for barley has been decided upon, and I want to ask the Minister to be careful, when he is dealing with the scheme for this year, that he makes allowance for the heavy carryover of barley that has been left from last year. I want further to ask him, when he is dealing with the scheme which I anticipate will come into operation the year after next— the minimum quantity scheme— to make sure that the percentage of English barley used in the mash tun is as high as possible. I say that because although the brewers have used in the last three years 54, 57, and 64 per cent, respectively of the English barley crop, and that is quite a creditable effort on their part, in keeping with the gentleman's agreement, yet even when they used 64 per cent, of the English barley available, that was not sufficient, and a much bigger percentage will have to be used in the mash tun if justice is to be done to the English barley grower. We in East Anglia are very grateful to the Minister for what he has done to give


us price insurance for the three commodities of oats, barley, and sheep, which have been particularly hard hit in the course of the last year. They are all commodities which affect the light land farmer, and I believe that this Bill will bring very good results to both the farmer and the farm worker.

11.45 p.m.

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I think the Government have every reason to be satisfied with the general reception of this Bill, not only by this House but by the agricultural organisations and the agricultural press. I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the Opposition for the assistance they have given in getting the Bill through the House in so short a time. I am not going to say that they have spared us in their criticisms, but there has been no attempt to "stonewall" the Measure, because I think they realise that something must be done for agriculture. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) did not like the phrase "price insurance" but I think the price insurance within the level of the limits we have tried to strike in the Bill is the type of price insurance which the public would be prepared to pay in order to keep agriculture going and maintain our acreage under the plough, and at this time especially we have felt that it was a real duty for us to do so.
It has been said by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) that the measures taken in the Bill are only temporary and probably do not mean very much. I can tell him that so long as this Government is in power they will be permanent. On more than one occasion it has been said that there are dangers in putting on these subsidies, because a calamity may come which would cause the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that no more could be paid out under them, but I do not think that will be so, because 1 believe the country does now realise what agriculture means to it and how vital a part it plays in our general economy. If in a time of economic stress agriculture were the only industry which had been guaranteed a profit out of State funds the public might, indeed, consider that that was a little hard, but by these subsidies we are not guaranteeing a profit, only trying to save

our farmers from the type of losses which, had they continued, would cripple farming. We hope to enable them to get their profits by other means than subsidies, that is, by trying to correlate the supply to the demand— which is a feature of the programme of the party opposite— the proper regulation of imports, and so on. We are also trying to bring about such efficiency measures as will be of real help to farmers. The hon. Member for Barn-staple does not admit that there are any, but if he scratches a little deeper below the surface he will find that genuine efficiency measures are at work.
We again express the hope that the Bill will give confidence to agriculture, and that, in conjunction with the other measures which have been taken, it will enable farmers to face the future with confidence, which is essential to the industry. I also hope— indeed, I go beyond hope— that it is going to assist the agricultural worker to get his fair share of the benefits. If we can do this then, indeed, we shall have cause to be satisfied.

Orders of the Day — SENIOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (LIVERPOOL) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

11.49 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Hon. Members will recall that from time to time there have been questions about schools in Liverpool. The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Liverpool education authority to contribute towards the provision of voluntary senior schools in the city. Three years ago the House passed the Education Act, 1936, which enables local education authorities to make building grants towards the cost of the provision of voluntary senior schools. Liverpool, for a variety of reasons, did not see their way to operate that Act. They recognise, however, the urgent need for remedying the condition of the denominational schools in Liverpool, particularly in the dockside area, and,


accordingly, they have put forward this scheme, which may be called a "build and lease" scheme. It has the assent of all parties in Liverpool, and under it the authority will acquire the sites, build the schools, and then lease them for a term of 50 years to the denominational authorities; but the freehold reversion will remain in the ownership of the Liverpool education authority.
The Bill involves no permanent or continuing alteration of the law, since its provisions apply only to the building of schools for which the denominations have already submitted proposals under the Act of 1936 within the time prescribed by the Act, and the proviso to Clause I makes it clear that the measure of assistance accorded to these bodies can be no greater and no less than under the Act of 1936. The only other provision of the Bill to which I need make specific reference is that contained in the latter part of Sub-section (3) of Clause I, where the provision relating to the teachers in the schools is exactly the same as under the Act of 1936. With regard to the finance of the Measure, I would refer the House to paragraph 2 of the explanatory memorandum. Although there is a Financial Resolution, there is an actual saving of expenditure under the Bill, so that in one sense it is unnecessary.
Anyone who knows the condition of the schools in Liverpool— I have known them for some 15 years— will appreciate the responsibility that is involved in allowing these schools to continue for a single day longer. That responsibility will weigh very heavily now that at last we have unanimous local assent in Liverpool, and I hope the House will be equally unanimous in passing the Measure.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I welcome this Bill because in my judgment it is a very necessary Measure, and I am glad to note the unanimity with which the proposal comes before the House from the City of Liverpool. Everyone interested in education and its development was staggered at the dispute which had arisen, and felt that the problem was going to be a very difficult one to solve. I am happy to be able unhesitatingly to support the manner in which a solution has been found, which will in my judgment achieve a result just as good as that which would have been

achieved had the dispute not arisen. I should, however, like to ask a question with regard to the explanatory memorandum. It suggests, with regard to cost, that with respect to Scotland the charge upon the Exchequer would be increased by eleven-eightieths of £ 16,000. I cannot understand why a reference is made to Scotland when the Bill applies to Liverpool and must of necessity be limited to proposals put forward under the Act of 1936 by the Liverpool authorities. I would like to have an explanation from the Minister.
The second question, in regard to public administration, is whether agreement has been arrived at as to the utilisation of the schools. I can understand the financial arrangement whereby 4 per cent. expended on the building of the school comes from the money that would have been provided by the authorities under the Act of 1936. That is covered in Clause 2. The question arises as to the use of the school outside school hours by the denominational authority, and the proportion of the expenditure that will be borne by the State for the upkeep of the school for use in that way. With regard to our denominational schools, there is an arrangement whereby if they are used for other than day-school purposes a certain proportion of the expenditure shall be borne by the school authorities. I want to know whether, in the agreement arrived at, the utilisation of the school will be a charge upon the Exchequer or will be borne by the school authorities.
We are entitled to know how this perfectly admirable scheme will be worked so that it may become a precedent for other districts when similar difficulties arise. This is the first time in this country— I am not speaking of Scotland— that the dual system has been put on a real workable and sound basis. I hope that it is only the beginning, and that others of a similar kind will be put forward.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell Fyfe: I want to express, on behalf of the whole of the people of Liverpool, our gratitude for this solution of a most difficult problem. We realise that it has meant great effort. We are grateful at the same time for the grant of public time to pass this Bill through the House. We hope that we in Liverpool


will be able to repay all this by the cooperation of all creeds and sections of the city in the advancement of our people and the education of every section of our youth.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think the whole House will join in feeling thankful that so happy a solution has been reached to what threatened to be a very painful situation. The Bill is, of course, illogical, as so many of our British Acts of Parliament are, but I believe that it will be very satisfactory in practice. It is illogical because it states in Clause 1 that the school provided by the local authority shall be deemed to be not provided. That is entirely characteristic of our British way of approaching a problem. Our genius as a nation has shown itself again and again in working by methods which, superficially, seem to be illogical. As I have already said, we have, in the Bill, a method of approach to a problem which has been long troubling other countries than our own and the method may be followed in other cases. My only regret is that this was not the method employed in the original Act from the first. If it had been given as an alternative it would have been made use of, with great advantage to the cause of education, because voluntary bodies have great difficulty in getting the necessary funds. The Bill will provide the means for the voluntary and non-provided schools to be adequately planned and built. I hope that the spirit which has been shown by both sides in the controversy— that we all regret— in adopting this solution augurs well for a happy future to the growth of education in our country.

12.1 a.m.

Mr. Logan: I rise only to say how thankful we are that the Government have been able to get a solution, I do not want to raise any acrimonious question in regard to the compromise that has been arrived at; it has been a wonderful solution and is an illustration of good government by all the parties concerned. On behalf of my co-religionists I will say that we had doubts at first; but there are no doubts now. The solution has been accepted in the fullest spirit. Anybody who is acquainted with these matters in Liverpool will know that they get to fever heat at times and one wonders whether education is to be

jeopardised or not. All parties, even those who were most vehement against the Bill, have decided to give the fullest support to it. My co-religionists fully accept the Bill and commend it to the House.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Select Committee of Seven Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Three by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented at any time not later than five clear days after the Second Reading of the Bill, be referred to the Committee.

Ordered, That Petitions against the Bill may be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office, provided that such Petitions shall have been prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of this House relating to Petitions against Private Bills.

Ordered, That the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel or Agents heard in support of the Bill.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to report from day to day the minutes of evidence taken before them.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum— [Mr. Lindsay.]

Orders of the Day — SENIOR PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (LIVERPOOL) [Money].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Resolved,
 That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to facilitate the provision in Liverpool of public elementary school accommodation for senior children, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums by which any education grants payable under any Act are increased by reason of expenditure incurred under the said Act by the local education authority of the City of Liverpool on, or in connection with, the provision of school-houses." — [King's Recommendation signified ). — [Mr. Lindsay.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1937.

Resolutions reported:
I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1938, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net Expenditure is £172,703 2s. 11d., namely:


SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Navy Services, 1937, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services.
—
—
145,042
6
0
66,192
8
0


2
Victualling and Clothing
…
78,837
3
9
—
—
46,842
l9
10


3
Medical Establishments and Services.
37,585
4
3
—
—
2,139
3
10


4
Fleet Air Arm
…
…
—
—
—
—


5
Educational Services
…
7,550
3
11
—
—
1,119
8
6


6
Scientific Services
…
—
—
26,814
2
2
22,561
3
7


7
Royal Naval Reserves
…
—
63
15
0
21,637
14
10
—


8
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:




Sec. 1. Personnel
…
11,299
19
9
—
—
27, 694
19
5


Sec. 2. Matériel
…
43,573
6
5
—
—
129,236
9
0


Sec. 3. Contract Work
—
1,069,311
15
4
1,055,797
13
10
—


9
Naval Armaments
…
—
1,220,418
15
11
1,066,037
0
7
—


10
Works, Buildings, and Repairs.
—
337,878
10
0
403,111
1
10
—


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
161,050
11
4
—
—
68,693
8
2


12
Admiralty Office
…
…
32,447
7
4
103
0
10
—
—


13
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers.
—
—
36,496
18
1
2,113
6
2


14
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men.
1,754
 16
 11
1,292
 4
1
—
—


15
CivilSuperannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities.
—
162
7
1
56,200
17
4
—


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
1,698
16
4
—
—
—




375,797
10
0
2,629,230
8
3
2,811,137
14
8
366,593
6
6




Total Deficits
£3,005,027
18
3
Total Surpluses
£ 3,177,731
1
2




Net Surplus … £172,703 2 11






£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
3,177,731
1
2


Total Deficits
3,005,027
18
3


Net Surplus
£172,703
2
11


And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
1. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned.


11. Whereas It appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1938, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £ 584,579 10s., namely:


SCHEDULE.


No.of Vote
Army Services, 1937, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Army
…
—
—
782,474
18
9
583,533
14
1


2
Territorial Army and Reserve Forces.
173,555
2
4
3,364
5
1
—
—


3
Medical Services
…
…
28,537
15
7
—
—
8,265
17
7


4
Educational Establishments.
—
—
12,421
0
0
7,301
15
7


5
Quartering and Movements
110,984
1
9
—
—
4,274
4
9


6
Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts.
280,228
4
10
—
—
76,659
1
3


7
Clothing
…
…
…
45,006
18
1
18,865
3
4
—
—


8
General Stores
…
…
157,678
7
2
—
—
137,615
1
8


9
Warlike Stores
…
…
—
7,879,846
18
10
7,324,133
19
3
—


10
Works, Buildings, and Lands.
—
966,693
11
2
1,097,135
19
9
—


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
—
95,784
14
3
217,732
0
4
—


12
War Office
…
…
33.238
 8
 1
—
—
125
10
9


13
Half-Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers.
—
25,675
10
5
16,166
19
6
—


14
Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non commissioned Officers, Men, and others.
57,425
17
0
—
—
15,510
17
10


15
Civil Superannuation, Com-pensation, and Gratuities.
16,067
1
10
—
—
221
9
5


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
6,041
0
9
—
—
—




908,762
17
5
8,990,230
3
1
9,450,064
17
7
833,507
12
11




Total Deficits
£ 9,898,993
0
6
Total Surpluses
£ 10,283,572
10
6




 Net Surplus… £384,579 10 0






£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
10,283072
10
6


Total Deficits
9,898,093
0
6


Net Surplus
£ 384,579
10
0


And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.
2. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned.


III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1938, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net Expenditure is £ 700,839 14s. 2d., namely:


SCHEDULE.


No. of Vote.
Air Services, 1937, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force.
—
—
147,684
0
3
1,808
0
1


2
Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transportation.
32,996
9
11
—
—
19,722
13
3


3
Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services.)
—
—
71,915
14
7
36,379
18
0


4
Works, Buildings, and Lands.
—
14,501
12
5
171,898
1
2
—


5
Medical Services
…
20,632
8
6
—
—
2,340
4
6


6
Technical Training and Educational Services.
485
14
1
1,829
1
4
—
—


7
Auxiliary and Reserve Forces.
—
10
7
6
70,109
3
5
—


8
Civil Aviation
…
…
—
8,974
1
5
240,827
15
1
—


9
Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services.
—
—
3,380
13
11
9,511
18
2


10
Air Ministry
…
…
24,117
10
0
—
—
752
11
4


11
Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-effective Services.
—
—
27,477
16
8
4,259
19
6


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
3,681
10
7
—
—
—




81,913
13
1
25,315
2
8
733,293
5
1
74,775
4
10




Total Deficits
£107,228
15
9
Total Surpluses
£808,068
9
11




Net Surplus … £ 700,839 14 2

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [17th July].

Resolution reported:

WAR RISKS INSURANCE.

" That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for authorising the Board of Trade, in the event of war and in other circumstances, to undertake

£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
808,068
9
11


Total Deficits
107,228
15
9


Net Surplus
£700,839
14
2

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.

3. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."

the insurance of ships and other goods, for the payment by the Board of Trade, in time of war, of compensation in respect of goods lost or damaged in transit, for requiring persons to insure goods against certain risks in time of war, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment into the Exchequer of the amount by which the sum standing at any time to the credit of either of the funds established under the said Act exceeds the


sum which, in the opinion of the Board of Trade and the Treasury, is likely to be required for the making of payments out of that fund; and
(b) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the amount of any sum so paid into the Exchequer and the application of that amount in redeeming or paying off debt;
and to authorise the Treasury to raise money and to create and issue securities for the purpose of providing for the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund to make good any deficiency in either of the said funds."

Orders of the Day — WAR RISKS INSURANCE [Money].

Resolution reported:
 That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for authorising the Board of Trade, in the event of war and in other circumstances, to undertake the insurance of ships and other goods, for the payment by the Board of Trade, in time of war, of compensation in respect of goods lost or damaged in transit, for requiring persons to insure goods against certain risks in time of war, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, or the issue out of the Consolidated Fund, of the amount by which, at any time when a payment falls to be made out of either of the funds established under the said Act, the sum standing to the credit of that fund is less than the sum required for the making of that payment; and
(b) the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act by the Board of Trade, except in so far as they are required to be defrayed out of either of the said funds."

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS TRADE GUARANTEES BILL.

As amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I do not wish to detain the House for long, as I dealt at some length with the provisions of the Bill on the Second Reading last Friday, but I feel that I cannot let the Third Reading pass without saying a few words. I hope that this epoch-making Measure will suffice to achieve the objects which the Government have in view in bringing it forward. I hope that the credits which are being provided here, which may involve the taxpayer in a considerable amount of expenditure, will do all the good required, and that there will be no further need to make public provision of this kind. I hope, further, that the object of this Bill, the bringing to an end of the grave international situation with which we are faced, will be achieved without the necessity for a further Measure of this kind.

Orders of the Day — POOR LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next. — [Miss Ward.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Ten Minutes after Twelve o'clock.